" * * v. * \0 











**. 











,o* co""**^ 




^ > „ V ° » * > O ' s 












C °//* 5 SO'* \ 




>. 




A> <P 




V , 



^ * 




'^SSmTSTS^ 



fy 




^<^z^y^ 



THE LIFE 



OF 



STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 



JAMES W. SHEAHAN. 



NEW YORK: 

HARPER & BROTHERS. PUBLISHERS, 

FBANKLIN SQUARE. 

1860. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight 
hundred and sixty, by 

HARPER & BROTHERS, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New 

York. 



PREFACE. 



In the following pages it is proposed to present as full 
and as complete an account of the life and public services 
of Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, as the limits of this 
volume will allow. The events of the last six years have 
given to his name a world-wide fame, but his entire public 
career, as well as the incidents of his boyhood, furnish an 
example of success following a determined purpose to ad- 
here to fixed political principles that has rarely* had its 
equal. So intimately has Mr. Douglas been connected 
with the most important legislation, and with the history 
of the political parties of the last twenty -five years, that it 
has been found difficult at times to confine this work to a 
record of his acts. But as far as it has been possible to do 
so, the writer has abstained carefully from comments upon 
the acts of others, except when to do so was necessary to 
present clearly and truthfully the history of Mr. Douglas. 

It is due to candor to state that these pages have been 
prepared without having been submitted to Mr. Douglas, 
who, if he read them at all, will do so for the first time after 
the issue of the book. They have been written by one 
who agrees fully with Mr. Douglas in political views, and 
who, since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, has 
been engaged in maintaining before the people of Illinois 
the wisdom, justice, and expediency of the policy of the 
Democratic party upon the question of Slavery in the Ter- 
ritories. 

With these words of explanation the book is submitted 
to those who may choose to read it. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Ancestry. — Death of his Father. — Life on a Farm. — Disappointment. — Ap- 
prenticeship. — Enters School. — Removal to Western New York. — Studies 
Law. — Taste for Politics. — Goes to the West. — Experience in Cleveland. 
— Cincinnati. — Louisville. — Trip to St. Louis. — Hon. E. C. Bates. — Il- 
linois at that time. — Internal Improvements. — Douglas reaches Jackson- 
ville Page 1 

CHAPTER II. 

Want of Money. — Goes to Winchester. — Clerk of Auction. — Obtains a 
School. — Murray M'Connel. — Admitted to the Bar. — Personal Appear- 
ance. — Jackson's Bank Policy. — Douglas proposes Meeting to defend it. 
— The Meeting. — Douglas's Triumph. — Meeting of Legislature. — Douglas 
elected State's Attorney. — Early Friends. — Predictions of his Failure. — 
His Tact and Ability. — His Success. — Institutes Convention System in 
Morgan County. — Its Success. — Douglas put on Ticket. — Democrats carry 
the County 14 

CHAPTER HI. 

Douglas in the Legislature. — Internal Improvement System. — National Poli- 
tics. — Reports against Divorces. — Proposes Plan for Internal Improve- 
ments. — Is overruled. — System adopted. — Appointed Register of Land- 
office. — Gloomy political Prospects. — Convention System resorted to. — 
Origin of Democratic State Organization. — Nominated for Congress. — 
Memorable Canvass. — Is defeated. — First State Convention. — Public Din- 
ner at Quincy. — Rejoicings of the Whigs. — Several Speeches. — The Case 
of M'Clernand and Field. — Douglas's Argument. — Supreme Court. — Cam- 
paign of 1840. — Douglas's Canvass. — Debates in the Lobby. — Appointed 
Secretary of State. — History of the "Alien Suffrage." — Douglas presents 
a hostile Decision. — The Vote saved for Van Buren. — Supreme Court re- 
organized. — Douglas elected to the Bench. — His Circuit. — The Mormons. 
— Saves Joe Smith's Life. — Gratitude of Smith. — Douglas's Influence with 
the Mormons. — His Popularity as a Judge. — Caucus for U. S. Senator. — 
Is defeated by one Vote. — Second State Convention. — Nominated for Con- 
gress. — His Opponent. — Is elected. — Violent Illness. — Leaves for Wash- 
ington. — Retrospect 27 



Vlll CONTENTS- 



CHAPTER IV. 

Early Support of Jackson. — Speech on Jackson's Fine. — Invited to Tennes- 
see. — Monster Convention. — Visit to the Hermitage. — Interview with 
Jackson. — Interesting Account. — Jackson's Estimate of Douglas's Speech. 
— Speech at Inauguration of Jackson's Statue Page 59 

CHAPTER V. 

Annexation of Texas. — Proposes 36° 30'. — It is adopted. — Mexican War. 
— Great Speech on American Title, and in Defense of the War. — Treaty 
of Peace. — Votes against it .- 72 

CHAPTER VI. 

Foreign Policy. — Oregon Boundary. — Democratic Platform. — 54° 40'. — 
Monroe Doctrine. — Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. — Debates in Senate. — Speech 
on Monroe Doctrine. — Extracts from Debates. — Cuba 91 

CHAPTER VII. 

Territorial Expansion. — Central America. — Annexation of more Territory. 
— Friendship of England. — Repelling foreign Aggressions. — Filibuster- 
ism. — Acquisition of Cuba Ill 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Compromise of 1850. — The Questions at issue. — The Demands on both 
sides. — Henry Clay in the Senate. — President's Message. — Plans of Com- 
promise by Houston, Benton, Foote, Bell, and Clay. — Abolition of Peti- 
tions. — Protracted Debates. — Speeches by Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Doug- 
las. — Bills reported for California, the Territories, and Texas Boundary. 
— Committee of Thirteen appointed. — Why Clay reported Omnibus. — 
Conversation between Clay and Douglas. — History of Omnibus Bill. — 
Davis's Amendments. — Restrictions on Territorial Legislation. — Soule's 
Amendment. — Douglas votes for Wilmot Proviso. — His Reasons. — Texas 
Boundary. — California. — Death of President Taylor. — Power of Terri- 
torial Legislatures. — Extracts from Debates. — Destruction of the Omnibus. 
— New Mexico put out. — Texas put out. — California put out. — Utah left 
alone. — 36° 30' repudiated by the Abolitionists. — Passage of the Bill. 124 

CHAPTER IX. 

California Bill passed. — Texas Boundary Bill passed. — New Mexico Bill 
passed. — Fugitive Slave Law passed. — Exclusion of free Negroes from 
States. — Douglas's Speech. — Extracts from Debates on final Passage of 
Compromise Acts. — Douglas returns to Chicago. — The Abolition Mob. — 
Defends the Fugitive Slave Law. — Effects of the Speech. — The Compro- 
mise in Congress. — His Speech in 1851. — Why his Vote not recorded for 
Fugitive Slave Law. — Why he voted for Wilmot Proviso. — The Chicago 
Speech. — Defense of Fugitive Slave Law 155 



CONTENTS. IX 



CHAPTER X. 



The Nebraska-Kansas Bill. — Its Purpose. — The Freedom of the People. — 
Douglas reports the Bill. — The Missouri Compromise. — Dixon Amend- 
ment. — Sumner Amendment. — Bill taken up. — Chase asks Postponement. 
— Meantime Chase issues his Address. — Douglas's Exposure of the Trick. 
— Chase's Apology. — Protest of New England Clergy. — Of the Chicago 
Clergy. — 14th Section. — The Chase Amendment. — Its Design. — Why it 
was voted down. — Extracts from Speeches of "Wells, Toucey, Hunter, Cass, 
Atchison. — The Badger Amendment. — Clayton Amendment. — Bill passed. 
— History of Bill in the House. — Returned to Senate. — Passed. — Douglas's 
Speech of March 3. — President Pierce and the Nebraska Bill. ...Page 187 

CHAPTER XI. 

Anti-Nebraskaism. — Know-nothingism. — Douglas denounces Know-noth- 
ingism at Philadelphia. — His Speech on that occasion. — Chicago Mob in 
1854. — Description of Scene. — Reason for refusing him a Hearing. — Vio- 
lence at other points. — The Election of 1854. — Fusion Legislature. — Elec- 
tion of Trumbull. — Douglas offered a public Dinner at Chicago. — His 
Speech on that occasion. — Visits New Orleans. — Denounces Know-noth- 
ings at Richmond, Va 263 

CHAPTER XII. 

Relief of Supreme Court of U. States. — Douglas's Plan. — His Speech explain- 
ing it. — Plan rejected. — Bill fails. — His Defense of Supreme Court... 277 

CHAPTER XHI. 

Kansas in 1856. — President's Message. — Topeka Constitution. — Douglas's 
celebrated Report, March 12th. — Reports a Bill enabling Kansas to form 
a State Government. — Extracts from Report. — His Speech on same sub- 
ject. — His Reply to Collamer. — Various Bills introduced. — Toombs's Bill. 
— Bill passed. — House passes Bill admitting Kansas. — Senate amends it. 
— Dunn's Bill passes House. — Douglas's Report upon it. — Laid on Ta^bja 
— House introduces Legislation for Kansas into Armff Bff on gy CSS con _ 

ment of Houses. — Congress adjourns. — A~ — ~~ 284 

vened, and Bill passed... 

CHAPTER XIV. 
The Lecomptoa Controversy.— Governors for Kansas.— Governor Walker.— 
Conditions of Acceptance.— His Instructions and Inaugural.— Constitu- 
tion to be submitted.— Meeting of Congress.— President's Message.— 
Douglas's Speech of 9th December 3U 

CHAPTER XV. 
Internal Improvements. - River and Harbor Bills. -Tonnage Duties.- 
Douglas's Proposition.— Letter to Governor Matteson.— Illinois Central 



X CONTENTS. 

Eailroad. — History of the Measure before Congress. — Its Passage. — Its 
• Benefits to Illinois and the West. — Pacific Railroad. — Speech on sub- 
ject Page 354 

CHAPTER XVI. 

Campaign of 1858. — The Lecompton Constitution. — John Calhoun. — Dem- 
ocratic Protests. — Unanimity in Illinois. — President sustained. — Change 
of Policy by Administration. — Disappointment in Illinois. — Strange Doc- 
trines of Washington Union. — Panic of Republicans. — Their Hopes re- 
vived. — President's Message. — Meeting in Chicago. — Speeches. — Bigler 
and Fitch denounced. — Proscription commenced. — Danitism instituted. — 
Democratic Convention. — New Delegations. — How got up. — Unanimity 
of Democrats. — Meeting of the Convention. — Its Proceedings. — Its Reso- 
lutions. — Danite Convention. — Proscription continued. — Second Danite 
Convention. — Republican Convention. — Democratic Papers in Illinois. — 
Douglas returns to Chicago. — His Reception. — The Proceedings. — Lin- 
coln's Speech, 17th June. — Douglas's Speech in Chicago 380 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Lincoln addresses Meeting at Chicago. — Republican Aid to Danites. — Ger- 
man Democrats of Chicago. — Douglas leaves for Springfield. — His Route. 
— Douglas makes and announces his Appointments for Meetings. — The 
List. — Returns to Chicago. — Lincoln's Challenge. — Its Cause. — Douglas's 
Reply. — joint Discussions agreed upon. — Trumbull speaks at Chicago. — 
Proscription continued. — How a Democrat saved his Head. — Douglas's 
Visit and Speech at Winchester. — Freeport Treason. — Popular Sovereign- 
ty Doctrines of Orr, Douglas, Buchanan. — Joint Discussion at Ottawa. — 
Its Result. — The Freeport Questions. — Douglas's Answers. — Is denounced 
and read out of Party. — Douglas's Speech in '59 on same subject. — Joint 
Debates. — Trumbull's Policy. — Imported Orators to "kill Douglas." — 
Danite Proceedings. — Washington Union. — Letters from Breckenridge, 
Wise, and Clay. — Hon. A. H. Stephens. — Labors of the Campaign. — 
Douglas's last Speeches. — Returns to Chicago. — Election Day. — The Re- 
sult. — Danite Vote. — Why it was small. — Efforts to Defeat Douglas con- 
t j nue J.— Senator Coffee 416 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Married in 1847.— Death of Mrs. Douglas in 1855.— His Children.— ~ 
ried in 1856.— Plantation and Slaves Story.— True Statement. — Remarks 
in Senate upon it. — Slaveholders' Stories in 1858. — Mr. Slidell reuses 
them. — Malignity of federal Officers. — Property in Chicago. — Donation 
to University. — Aid in 1856 to carry Pennsylvania 435 

CHAPTER XIX. 

Douglas visits Europe. — Not presented to Queen Victoria. — Court Costume. 
— Goes to St. Petersburg. — Interview with Nesselrode. — Costume Question 
again. — Is presented to the Emperor. — Sebastopol. — Douglas and the 



CONTENTS. XI 

Presidency. — Convention of 1848. — Supports Cass. — Convention of 1852. 
— Convention of 1856. — Two-third Rule. — Buchanan obtains Majority. — 
Douglas withdrawn. — His Letter. — Effect on Convention. — Illinois State 
Convention in 1860. — Resolutions. — Conventions in other States. — Demo- 
cratic Organization in Illinois. — History from 1837 to 1860 Page 443 

CHAPTER XX. 

Utah. — The Mormons. — Prohibition of Polygamy. — Power and Expediency 
of Congressional Legislation. — Mormon Government. — Their Want of 
Loyalty. — Aliens to the Laws of the United States. — The Remedy for ex- 
isting Evils. — Douglas's Views. — His Plan. — His Speech in 1857. — Min- 
nesota. — Oregon. — Douglas and Organization of new States and Terri- 
tories. — Naturalization Question. — African Slave-trade 456 

CHAPTER XXL 

Cincinnati Platform. — Anxiety for Endorsement of Nebraska Act. — His 
Defense of that Platform. — His Interest in it. — Popular Sovereignty. — 
Harper's Magazine Article. — Attorney General Black. — The Pamphlets. 
— Gwin's Speech. — Douglas's Reply. — Cobb's unfriendly Legislation. — 
An unchanged Platform 466 

CHAPTER XXII. 

Harper's Ferry Affair. — Debates in Congress. — Douglas's Remedy. — His 
Reply to Fessenden. — His Reply to Seward 502 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

Popular Demonstrations. — St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans, New York, 
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington. — Service on Committees in House. 
— On Senate Committees. — Public Lands. — Liberal Policy. — Homestead 
Bill. — Friendship for Agriculturists. — Opposition to Monopolies. — Con- 
clusion 524 



LIFE OF STEPHEN A, DOUGLAS, 



CHAPTER I. 

EARLY LIFE. 

" The issues of all human action are uncertain. No man 
can undertake to predict positively that even virtue will meet 
with its full reward in this world ; but this much may be said 
with entire certainty, that he who succeeds in marrying his 
name to a great principle, achieves a fame as imperishable as 
truth itself." Such was the language in which a senator from 
Virginia concluded an able and most eloquent speech upon 
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. The prediction has been verified 
by history. By that act of legislation, the name of Stephen 
A. Douglas was " married" to the principle of Popular Sov- 
ereignty ; and, even had he no other claim upon the grateful 
memory of the American people, that indissoluble blending 
of his name with the most vital principle of constitutional lib- 
erty would alone render his name as imperishable as truth 
itself. The name of Stephen A. Douglas, therefore, has, by 
that single and most memorable act, been stamped ineffaceably 
upon the pages of his country's history, and, though contem- 
poraneous writers may have recorded the most widely differ- 
iug judgments upon his conduct, and future historians may 
differ as widely as those who were present at, and who were 
participants in the consequences of the passage of that great 
act as to the measure of censure or praise that should be 
awarded to him, still the assertion of the senator from Vir- 
ginia will stand verified, and, in defiance of all the bitterness 
of his enemies, throughout all coming time the name of Doug- 
las and the great principle of Popular Sovereignty will be so 
linked in the records of the past, and so closely identified with 
the memories of the present, that the fame of the former can 
only perish in the overthrow of the latter — an occurrence only 
possible in the total destruction of truth itself. 

A 



2 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

That branch of the Douglas family from which the subject 
of this work is a descendant emigrated from Scotland, and 
settled at New London, in the province of Connecticut, during 
the earlier period of our colonial settlements. One of the two 
brothers who first came to America subsequently removed 
from New London, and settled in Maryland, on the banks of 
the Potomac, not very distant from the site of the present city 
of Washington. His descendants, now very numerous, are to 
be found in Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and other South- 
ern States. The other brother remained at New London, and 
his descendants are scattered over New England, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and the Northwestern States. Doctor Stephen 
A. Douglas, the father of the statesman of the present day, 
was born at Stephentown, in Rensselaer County, New York, 
and when quite a youth removed with his parents to Bran- 
don, Rutland County, Vermont, where, after his regular course 
at Middlebury College, he studied medicine, and became dis- 
tinguished in his profession. He married Miss Sarah Fisk, 
the daughter of an extensive farmer in Brandon, by whom he 
had two children — the first a daughter, and the second a son. 
On the first of July, 1813, without any previous illness or 
physical warning, he died suddenly of a disease of the heart. 
At the very moment of his attack and of his death, he was 
playing with the daughter at his knees, and holding his son 
Stephen in his arms. 

In 1813 the country was at war with Great Britain — had 
undertaken a war with the most powerful nation in the world ; 
at that time the United States, with an unprotected coast, with 
an overbearing, and insulting, and powerful enemy menacing 
both seaboard and frontier; with hostile navies swarming 
upon the lakes, and commanding every sea where the enter- 
prise of American commerce had unfurled a sail, and veteran 
armies, fresh from Continental fields of renown, landing on our 
shores — at that time, when the infant republic, trusting in the 
justice of her cause, had risked every thing to preserve the 
sacred principle that an American citizen, no matter where he 
might be, who stood upon an American deck, was to be se- 
cured, at all hazards, in all the great rights guaranteed to him 
by the Constitution of his country — while this war was 
waging, and while the contest between absolute power and 
popular right was maintained with fire and sword from De- 



EARLY LIFE, 3 

troit to Key West, in the midst of this struggle, on the 23d 
day of April, 1813, was born Stephen A. Douglas, who, forty- 
one years thereafter, became the great champion of that same 
sacred principle, — not, indeed, in behalf of the gallant men 
who tread the decks of the American fleets, but in behalf of 
those other and no less gallant heroes — the pioneers of Amer- 
ican progress, the founders of American states, the builders 
of American sovereignties — the People of the American Ter- 
ritories. 

The grandmothers, maternal and paternal, of Mr. Douglas 
were of the name of Arnold, and were both descended from 
William Arnold, who was one of the associates of Roger Wil- 
liams in founding the colony of Rhode Island, and whose son 
was appointed governor of that colony by Charles the Second, 
when he granted the famous charter under which the state 
continued to be governed until even after the establishment 
of the American Union, and until the adoption a few years ago 
of the present Constitution of Rhode Island. The descendants 
of Governor Arnold are at this day very numerous in Rhode 
Island, and, indeed, throughout the whole country. 

Immediately after the death of Dr. Douglas, his widow, with 
her two children, removed from their native village to a farm 
about three miles in the country, where she resided with her 
bachelor brother, Mr. Fisk, on their patrimonial estate. From 
his earliest childhood, Stephen was raised to a regular course 
of life — attending the district school during the winter seasons, 
and working steadily on the farm the residue of each year. 
When fifteen years of age, finding that a number of his school- 
mates of his own years were about to enter the academy to 
prepare for college, he applied to his uncle, whom he had al- 
ways been taught to respect as a father, for permission and 
means to enable him to take the same course. This request 
was made in pursuance of an understanding which he sup- 
posed had existed in the family from his earliest recollection, 
that he was to be educated and sent to college ; so strongly 
was this plan for the future impressed upon his mind, that it 
had never occurred to him that his uncle's marriage a year 
previous, and the very recent birth of an heir to his estate, had 
in the least changed their respective relations ; nor had he 
seen in these events that cloud which was to darken the hith- 
erto bright visions which had stimulated his youthful am- 



4 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

bition. An affectionate remonstrance against the folly of 
abandoning the farm for the uncertainties of a professional 
life, accompanied by a gentle intimation that he had a family 
of his own to support, and therefore did not feel able to bear 
the expense of educating other persons' children, was the re- 
sponse made to the boy's request. Instantly the eyes of young 
Douglas were opened to his real condition in life. He saw at 
once that he could not command the means requisite for ac- 
quiring a collegiate education without exhausting the only re- 
sources upon which his mother and sister must rely ; he also 
saw that if he remained on the farm with his uncle until he be- 
came of age, he would then be thrown irpon the world without 
a profession or a trade by which he could sustain them and 
himself. Realizing the full force of these considerations, and 
perceiving for the first time that he must rely upon himself for 
the future, he determined to leave the farm and at once learn 
a mechanical trade, that being the most promising and cer- 
tain reliance for the future. Bidding farewell to his mother 
and sister, he set off on foot to engage personally in the great 
combat of life ; on that same day he walked fourteen miles, 
and before night was regularly indentured as an apprentice to 
a cabinet-maker in Middlebury. He worked at his trade with 
energy and enthusiasm for about two years, the latter part of 
the time at a shop in Brandon, and gained great proficiency in 
the art, displaying remarkable mechanical skill ; but, in conse- 
quence of feeble health, and a frame unable to bear the contin- 
ued labor of the shop, he was reluctantly compelled to aban- 
don a business in which all his hopes and pride had been cen- 
tred, and to which he had become sincerely attached. He 
has often been heard to say, since he has been distinguished in 
the councils of the nation, that the happiest days of his life had 
been spent in the workshop, and, had his health and strength 
been equal to the task, no consideration on earth could have 
induced him to have abandoned it, either for professional or 
political pursuits. 

He entered the academy of his native town, and commenced 
a course of classical studies, to which he devoted himself for 
about twelve months with all that energy and enthusiasm 
which are a part of his nature. 

In the mean time his sister had married Julius 1ST. Granger, 
Esq., of Ontario County, New York, and shortly afterward his 



EARLY LIFE. 5 

mother was married to Gehazi Granger, Esq., father of Julius, 
and at the close of his first year at Brandon Academy, young 
Douglas, at the earnest solicitation of his mother and step-fa- 
ther, removed with them to their home near Canandaigua, 
Kew York. He at once became a student in the academy at 
that place — an institution which for more than half a century 
has been celebrated for its thorough academical course of 
studies, and for the large number of eminent professional men 
and statesmen whose names once appeared on her catalogue. 
He remained at Canandaigua nearly three years, applying him- 
self with untiring energy and zeal to the pursuit of his classic- 
al course at the academy, and, during a portion of the same 
time, followed a course of law studies in the omce and under 
the instruction of the Messrs. Hubbell. Some idea may be 
formed of his proficiency in the classical course, and of the en- 
ergy with which he pursued his studies, from the fact that, 
while the laws of New York at that time required a course of 
seven years to entitle a student to be admitted to practice law, 
four years of which might be occupied in classical studies, Mr. 
Douglas, on a thorough examination upon his whole course of 
study, was allowed a credit of three years for his classical at- 
tainments at the time he commenced the study of the law, 
leaving four years only as the period which he would be re- 
quired to continue as a law student to entitle him to be ad- 
mitted to the bar of that state. He kept up his collegiate 
course, however, during the whole time he was studying law, 
so that when he removed to the West in June, 1833, he had 
mastered nearly the entire collegiate course in most of the 
various branches required of a graduate in our best univer- 
sities. 

While at Canandaigua, that taste for political controversy, 
which had shown itself in him when a boy, had a wider field. 
The re-election of General Jackson took place in 1832 ; and the 
animated, vigorous, and, at times, most heated discussions of 
the day, developed and matured that taste, until he made the 
study of the political history of the country a subject of as 
deep importance as he did the scholastic exercises of the acad- 
emy. We have not been able to ascertain whether, during 
the exciting canvass of 1832, he made any address to any po- 
litical meeting hi Canandaigua or elsewhere ; but we are in- 
formed that in the debating clubs, and in all gatherings, large 



6 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

or small, the cause of the old hero found in him a most enthu- 
siastic champion. It was in the discussions which took place 
before the societies composed of his fellow-students at Canan- 
daigua that he made his first public speech ; and it was there, 
after having conquered the natural diffidence of all youthful 
orators, that he first obtained that confidence and self-reliance, 
as well as that ready and constant flow of strong and forcible 
language, which mark the speeches of his more mature age. 

A gentleman, now residing in Illinois, who was a fellow-stu- 
dent of Douglas at Canandaigua, states that he was universally 
beloved by all his companions — loved for his impulsive gen- 
erosity, his frankness, and the genial kindness of his disposi- 
tion. He was recognized and admitted to be the politician of 
the circle ; and, though the students were of all political par- 
ties, to Douglas was conceded the distinction of being the best 
posted student in the place. Indeed, a taste for politics was 
evidenced at an early day. It is stated that one of his earliest 
essays in behalf of the Democratic party was the organization 
of a band of " Jackson boys" in Vermont, who proclaimed a 
war upon the " Coffin handbills," and who managed to destroy 
those placards as soon as they appeared on the walls and fences 
of the town. He has lived to* read the declaration to the peo- 
ple of Illinois, in 1858, of a " life-long democrat," who was act- 
ively engaged in the circulation of those infamous libels upon 
General Jackson, that Stephen A. Douglas was not a safe or 
reliable member of the Democratic party ! 

In June, 1833, Mr. Douglas, then a few months over twenty 
years of age, left Canandaigua to earn for himself a livelihood 
and independence. His destination was that uncertain region 
then designated by the general and somewhat comprehensive 
term " the West." He left home and friends without any pur- 
pose of locating at any particular point. His intention was to 
go to a new country, and by identifying himself with its inter- 
ests, and devoting his talents to the development of those in- 
terests, he hoped to be successful. Such a home, he concluded, 
could not be found in the old-settled states, where the walks 
of the profession were crowded with men already eminent, but 
a man of energy and industry might hope for one in the new 
settlements on the Ohio and Mississippi. Provided with a 
small sum of money, he left Canandaigua, and his first resting- 
place was at Cleveland, Ohio. It was not his intention origi- 



EARLY LIFE. 



nally to remain at Cleveland, but, as he had letters of introduc- 
tion to persons residing there, and also personal friends, he 
thought he would profit by such advice and counsel as he could 
obtain as to other and more distant points. He made the ac- 
quaintance of the Hon. Sherlock J. Andrews, at that time a 
practicing lawyer, and since then a member of Congress from 
that district. Mr. Andrews was pleased with the youth ; gave 
him all the information he could furnish, but advised him to 
remain in Cleveland, and, as an inducement to do so, tendered 
him the use of his library and office until he should have pur- 
sued his law studies for one year within the state, as required 
by the laws of Ohio, when he would be entitled to admission 
at the bar, at which time, such was Mr. Andrews' liberal offer, 
Douglas was to be associated with Mr. Andrews as a member 
of the firm. To be met at the very threshold of his undertak- 
ing by such a brilliant promise of success was truly gratifying, 
and the offer was at once accepted. But the engagement was 
not to be completed. Young Douglas at once entered upon 
his duties as law clerk in Mr. Andrews' office, but in less than 
a week was prostrated by an attack of bilious fever — the 
scourge of the Western country during the period of its early 
settlement — and was confined to his room for many weary 
months. It was not until October that he exhibited any signs 
of permanent recovery. The physicians who had attended 
him advised him to return to Canandaigua, as, in all probabil- 
ity, he would be attacked by the fever again in the spring, 
which his feeble health and delicate frame, both now so disas- 
trously impaired, would not be able to sustain. Under these 
circumstances, he concluded to leave Cleveland — then but a 
small village, now the beautiful forest city of the Lakes. In 
leaving there, he never thought of taking the back track and 
becoming a dependent upon his friends at home, but he de- 
termined to leave Cleveland by a forward movement, by a fur- 
ther step into the great West, resolved never, never to return 
until he should attain and firmly establish a respectable posi- 
tion in his profession. With this purpose firmly fixed in his 
mind, he left Cleveland during October, 1833, and never re- 
turned to visit his friends there until, ten years later, he 
carried with him his certificate of election as a member of 
Congress, having, in the mean time, been state's attorney, 
member of the Legislature, register of the Land-office, secre- 



8 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tary of state, and judge of the Supreme Court in the State of 
Illinois. 

He left Cleveland on a canal-boat, on which he traveled un- 
til he reached Portsmouth, on the Ohio River, where he took 
steam-boat and proceeded down the river to Cincinnati. For 
an entire week he sought some respectable employment in that 
city, from which he could derive means to support himself 
mitil such time as he could recruit his health and regain his 
strength to enable him to commence the practice of the law. 
His short stock of funds was nearly exhausted. Finding no 
encouragement in Cincinnati, he pushed on to Louisville, Ken- 
tucky, where he spent another week with no better success 
than had rewarded his search in Cincinnati. Nothing but his 
firm resolve not to return until he had accomplished a success 
at the bar nerved the heart of the friendless, moneyless, health- 
less boy. He never despaired of success, though from what 
quarter and when it was to come bid defiance to his conjec- 
tures. Turning his back upon Louisville, he proceeded by 
steamer to St. Louis. During this trip he for the first time 
witnessed and realized to their full extent the casualties inci- 
dent to the navigation of the Western rivers — casualties with 
which, on several occasions subsequently, it was his misfortune 
to become too familiar. Near the mouth of the Ohio the boat 
was detained a whole week in consequence of running upon a 
" snag" and breaking her machinery ; and just below St. Louis 
she barely escaped destruction by fire. During this trip, thus 
prolonged to nearly twice the time usually occupied in going 
from Louisville to St. Louis, he made several acquaintances, 
and formed friendships which he has ever cherished with affec- 
tion, and of which he always speaks with gratitude, particu- 
larly when referring to Dr. Linn, the distinguished senator 
from Missouri, and Colonel Miller, at that time governor of 
the same state, both of whom were his fellow-passengers. 

Arrived at St. Louis, he made the acquaintance of the Hon. 
Edwaed Bates, then, as now, an eminent lawyer and an orna- 
ment to his profession. Mr. Bates was kind to the young 
stranger, encouraging him by his advice, and tendering him 
the free use of his office and library until he could get into 
practice on his own account. The immediate and urgent ne- 
cessities of the youth did not permit an acceptance of this 
generous offer. He had but a few, very few dollars left, and 



EARLY LIFE. 9 

some immediate employment yielding a pecuniary compensa- 
tion was necessary. With thanks, he reluctantly but neces- 
sarily declined Mr. Bates's offer, and, seeing no opportunity 
of obtaining employment in St. Louis, he concluded to seek 
without delay some country town, where, if his earnings were 
small, his expenses at least would be far less than in the large 
city. His present search was an engagement as a teacher 
until spring, by which time he hoped with renewed health he 
might enter upon the great field of his ambition — the practice 
of the law. 

Having recently read a book of travels in the Western States 
by a Scotchman, in which was given a charming description 
of that part of Illinois about Jacksonville, and having counted 
his money, and finding that he had barely enough left to ena- 
ble him to reach that place, he resolved to make the last effort 
in that quarter, and trust to Providence and his own energies 
for the future. 

At the time to which we refer, Illinois was settled princi- 
pally in what is now the lower half of the state — in that part 
lying south of a line drawn east and west across the state, at 
what is the present northern boundary of Sangamon County ; 
the counties of Sangamon and Morgan embracing the terri- 
tory then included in the limits of half a dozen of the present 
counties of the state. The seat of government was at Vanda- 
lia, in Fayette County, but Sangamon and Morgan were the 
leading counties in point of population. In 1830, three years 
previously, the population of the state was as follows : 

White inhabitants 155,061 

Free negroes 1,637 

Total free 156,698 

Negroes held in bondage 747 

Total population 157,445 

By a census taken under the authority of the Legislature of 
1836-7 the population was ascertained to be : 

White males 141,667 

White females 125,558 

Total white 267,225 

Free negroes , 2,261 

Negroes registered as apprentices and held in bondage.... 488 

Total population 269,974 

The Hon. John Reynolds was governor, and Hon. Zadock 

A2 



10 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Casey lieutenant governor, they having been elected in August, 
1830, to serve four years each. 

The state was represented in Congress by the Hon. Samuel 
McRoberts and John M. Robinson in the Senate, and by three 
members in the House of Representatives. 

The judiciary of the state consisted of a Supreme Court of 
four judges, holding office during good behavior, and a num- 
ber of circuit courts. The circuit courts, having been erect- 
ed by the Legislature, were within the control and subject to 
the action of the power that created them. They might be 
abolished or increased from time to time, as the Legislature 
might determine. The Supreme Court, however, being a tri- 
bunal erected by the Constitution, the judges held office by a 
tenure which could not be disturbed by any legislative action. 
The only possible modes by which the Legislature could reach 
that tribunal was by voting an address, to be voted for by two 
thirds of the members, asking for the removal of the judges ; 
by impeachment, trial, and conviction of the judges ; or by in- 
creasing from time to time the number of judges constituting 
the court. The judges of the Supreme Court, with the gov- 
ernor, constituted a Council of Revision, a majority of which 
council could approve, or could exercise a veto upon all acts 
of legislation. The Supreme Court at that time consisted, as 
has been stated, of four judges, viz., William Wilson, Thomas 
C. Brown, Theophilus W. Smith, and Samuel D. Lockwood. 
The state in 1832 had voted for General Jackson, and the Dem- 
ocratic party was in a decided majority. 

The state had for a number of years been agitated upon the 
subject of internal improvements. That was the subject of 
local politics, entering more or less into the election of all state 
officers, particularly of members of the Legislature. Railroads 
and canals at that time were a subject as prolific in excitement, 
in speeches, in resolutions, and in politics as they have been at 
any subsequent period in the history of the state. At every 
session of the Legislature charters without number were grant- 
ed for all manner of works of improvement, but these produced 
no results. A charter to build a road or cut a canal was al- 
most valueless without the means or the credit to commence 
and go on with the work. As an indication of the extent to 
which this business was carried, the following table of railroads 
and canals authorized by acts of the Legislature previous to 



EARLY LIFE. 11 

the final adoption of a system in which the state was to be- 
come the paymaster will suffice. 

In December, 1835, a special session of the Legislature was 
held. Previous to that time the following railroads had been 
authorized by law, companies having been incorporated with 
liberal charters for their construction : 

Names of Roads. Miles. 

Viucennes and Chicago Railroad 240 

Alton and Springfield 80 

Jacksonville and Meredosia 24 — 344 

At that special session the following were added to the list : 

Belleville and Mississippi 16 

Pekin, Bloomington, and Wabash 150 

Mississippi, Springfield, and CaiToilton 125 

Alton, Wabash, and Erie 240 

Central Branch— Wabash 80 

Galena and Chicago 175 

Wabash and Mississippi 260 

Shawneetown and Alton 180 

Alton and Shawneetown 190 

Mount Carmel and Alton 150 

Wabash and Mississippi Union 180 

Warsaw, Peoria, and Wabash 275 

Waverly and Grand Prairie 30 

Rushville 15 

Pekin and Tremont 8 

Illinois Central 300 

Beardstown and Sangamon Canal 150 — 2524 

And at the next session the following : 

Illinois and Mississippi 90 

Naples and Jacksonville 24 

Chicago and Vincennes 240 

Springfield and Beardstown 50 

Winchester, Lynnville, and Jacksonville 40 

Bloomington, Ottawa, and Keshwakee 125 — 569 

A grand total of 24 railroads, with an aggregate length 
of 3287 miles, and one canal of 150 miles, making to- 
gether of miles 3437 

Charters were liberal in their terms, and contractors were 
ready and willing to go on with the works upon the first ap- 
pearance of money. But money there was none, and the issue 
had gradually been growing up before the people whether the 
state should or should not become a party to the construction 
of these works. The prospect of railroads or canals construct- 



12 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ed by individual enterprise or capital was daily becoming more 
and more remote ; and as that prospect receded, the policy of 
having the state embark in the grand enterprise assumed more 
significance, until at last it took shape and form, and became 
the eventful topic of the day. It had its friends and it had its 
opponents ; for years the latter were the stronger, and Legis- 
latures, reflecting the popular will, refused to commit the state 
to the internal improvement policy. A particular series of 
works formed the body of each proposed scheme, but these 
works were not of overruling local importance to those por- 
tions of the state having the main portion of the people, and 
consequently controlling the State Legislature. To overcome 
this great difficulty, the scheme of public works was each year 
increased by the addition of a new railroad, or branch connect- 
ing two or three counties, or giving the means of transporta- 
tion from interior counties to creeks and streams, which were, 
with very little regard for truth, declared by act of Legislature 
" navigable rivers." We believe a steam-boat captain, deceived 
possibly by one of these acts of Legislature, attempted to as- 
cend the "navigable" river Sangamon, and did succeed in 
reaching a small place called Portland, near Springfield, but 
the trip was never repeated, the boat having been compelled, 
for want of room to turn, to back down stream until it reach- 
ed the Illinois River. Those who now pass the railroad bridge 
over the Sangamon River, on the Chicago, Alton, and St. Louis 
Railroad, a few miles north of Springfield, will have some dif- 
ficulty in discovering the advantages of that point, the site of 
Portland, for a city with an extensive river trade. Yet, in 
olden times, that prospect was not deemed more visionary than 
that Chicago would be a city of a hundred thousand inhabit- 
ants. The advocates of the internal improvements to be con- 
structed by the state grew stronger each year. Many coun- 
ties, once strong in their hostility to the great scheme, were 
revolutionized in sentiment by including in the general plan a 
railroad or a branch which was to enhance the value of the 
farms a hundred-fold, and give to each producer a cheap and 
rapid ride to market with his products. Who could withstand 
the temptation ? Who could refuse to vote for a railroad to 
pass by his own door ? The history of the last five years has 
shown that the men of 1835-6 were at least no more unwise 
than the men of 1859. Cities borne down with debt, counties 



EAELY LIFE. 13 

reduced to repudiation, and individuals utterly ruined by lib- 
eral subscriptions to railroads, indicate that the seductions of 
grand works of internal improvement have been as potent of 
late years as they were in the days when Illinois so unfor- 
tunately embarked in the business. In vain, however, was the 
plan of a general system presented. The flying bids for local 
support became so numerous and so heavy that they threaten- 
ed destruction to the whole. The removal of the seat of gov- 
ernment was agitated, and eventually that project became a 
powerful auxiliary to the improvement system. It is believed 
that the delegation of a county having six members in the 
Lower House were enlisted in support of the improvement bill 
by the promise of the removal of the capital to the county seat 
of that county. Nor did this even turn the scale. Another 
and a more extensive bid for local support was included in the 
scheme. This was, that out of the first moneys borrowed on 
the faith of the state for works of internal improvement, a large 
sum (eventually fixed at $200,000) should be paid, in propor- 
tion to a census to be taken, to all the counties in the state 
through ichich no railroad or canal icas provided to be con- 
structed by the state ! 

The state was also, to some considerable extent, agitated 
upon the subject of General Jackson's bank policy. The bank 
had many interested, as well as political friends in the state. 
The policy of General Jackson was represented as fatal to the 
best interests of the people, because it destroyed the only relia- 
ble banking capital of the country. How was Illinois to pros- 
per without roads and canals, and how were roads and canals 
to be constructed if the banks — the only capitalists of the 
country — were destroyed? These questions were propound- 
ed at every town-meeting and court-day, and many of the 
most devoted friends of Jackson shrank from a defense of 
what they knew not how to defend. 

Pending these great questions, pending the consideration 
of measures fraught with so much evil to the state, and whose 
consequences are yet so severely felt, on a morning late in No- 
vember, 1833, Stephen A. Douglas stepped from a steam-boat 
at the town of Alton, and for the first time trod the generous 
soil and breathed the pure, free air of the Prairie State, Illinois. 

He lost no time in Alton, but at once proceeded by stage- 
coach to Jacksonville, where he arrived next day. He still 
lacked six months of being twenty-one years of age. 



14 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 



CHAPTER II. 

FIEST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 

Once arrived at Jacksonville, he had reached that point in 
his journey where, whether fortune was to smile or to frown 
upon him, he was to meet his destiny. He saw no prospect 
of succeeding at the law, no prospect of immediate success, 
and pecuniary aid was indispensable. He had but thirty-seven 
cents in money, and was a total stranger. Gentlemen now in 
Illinois, who at that time held high position — socially, politi- 
cally, and officially — state that, even a year later, there was 
but little in the personal ajjpearance of the delicate, wasted 
form, and the pale, anxious face of the youth, to attract any 
special attention. His first essay was to find employment in a 
law office, where for a time, in consideration of his services as 
a clerk, he could obtain enough to defray his personal expenses. 
He remained in Jacksonville some days, and was forced by 
necessity to sell such of his school-books as he had brought 
with him. Failing to obtain any employment, even as a teach- 
er, at Jacksonville, he started one morning in December on 
foot, and walked to the town of Winchester, now the flourish- 
ing county seat of Scott County. The morning after his arri- 
val he left his lodgings to inquire for employment. As he ap- 
proached the square, he saw a crowd of persons assembled, and 
curiosity led him to the spot. 

Some time previously a merchant in Winchester had died, 
and his stock in trade, consisting of a great variety of articles, 
had been advertised for sale by the administrator ; the sale had 
attracted a large attendance. The morning on which Mr. 
Douglas made his advent into the public square of Winchester 
was the morning fixed by previous notice for the sale. The 
administrator and the crier were present, but a clerk compe- 
tent to keep a record of the sales, and to make out the bills of 
the several purchasers, was indispensable. The hour had ar- 
rived and passed ; no person in the assemblage competent was 
willing to undertake the duty ; the administrator was embar- 
rassed, and the multitude impatient. At this critical moment 



FIRST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 15 

Mr. Douglas approached the scene ; he was a stranger ; one 
of the persons present suggested that perhaps he could " read, 
write, and cipher." The administrator at once addressed Mr. 
Douglas, representing the embarrassments of the case, and the 
urgent necessity for the sale, which could not proceed without 
the aid of a competent clerk. He begged his services as a 
personal obligation, and tendered the liberal salary of two dol- 
lars per day. After a brief struggle, in which the promised 
fee had, doubtless, its full force in determining his mind, he 
consented, and the sale at once commenced. The auction con- 
tinued three days, and the impression made by the young clerk 
was a most favorable one. His youth, his superior attainments, 
and particularly the promptness with which he discharged his 
duties, won for him the kind regards of all parties ; and, in 
addition to this, the readiness and ability which he displayed 
in the political conversations which took place at every inter- 
val during the sale and in the evenings, gained for him a re- 
spect and an admiration not generally extended to persons 
of his age. The warmth and force, yet the perfect good-hu- 
mor displayed by him in defense of " Old Hickory" in these 
discussions at once marked him as a valuable acquisition to 
the one party, and a formidable opponent of the other. The 
old farmers, who were Jackson men because they felt Jackson 
was right, though unable to argue the case with the Bankites, 
found in Douglas an object of special admiration. They ex- 
pressed their willingness to serve him in any way that was in 
their power. His three days' services as clerk of the auction 
yielded him six dollars in money — no small sum in those days, 
particularly when they constituted a man's entire fortune. His 
want of means, and his desire to get a school, were soon known, 
and as soon canvassed among his new-found friends and ad- 
mirers ; and in a few days he was provided with a school of 
forty pupils, at the rate of three dollars each per quarter ! He 
engaged to conduct this school for three months, and, on the 
first Monday in December, 1833, he commenced his labors as 
a teacher. 

In the few days he had remained at Jacksonville he made 
the acquaintance of General Murray M'Connell (his first friend 
in the state which has since conferred so many honors upon 
him), and who was appointed fifth auditor of the Treasury by 
President Pierce in 1855, at the request of Judge Douglas, 



16 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

without General M'Connell's solicitation or knowledge. The 
particular favor which General M'Connell rendered Mr. Doug- 
las, which he has never ceased to acknowledge, was the loan 
of some old law-books and copies of the statutes of the state. 
These books were indispensable to him, and he had not the 
means to purchase them. 

While teaching school, he devoted his evenings and leisure 
time to the study of these borrowed books, and frequently, on 
Saturday afternoons, acted as counsel before the justice's court 
in Winchester. Before leaving Jacksonville, he had filed his 
application before the Supreme Court for admission to the bar. 
The proceeds of his school, together with the fees obtained for 
legal services before the justice of the peace, justified him, at 
the end of the three months, in giving up his school and in 
removing to Jacksonville, where he opened an office for the 
practice of the law. 

On the fourth day of March, 1834, then lacking some seven 
weeks of his majority, he was licensed as an attorney by the 
judges of the Supreme Court. Little did those judges think, 
when they issued a license to the stripling who stood before 
them on that bleak March day, that in a few, a very few years, 
he would become the leader of a great, growing, and eventu- 
ally triumphant party, having for its aim the reorganization of 
that court and the destruction of its political power ; much 
less did they suppose that, in seven years from that day upon 
which they granted him their license to practice law, he would- 
be elevated by the almost unanimous voice of the representa- 
tives of the people to a seat upon the same bench they occu- 
pied, possessing the confidence and the approval of the people 
to a degree never previously enjoyed by any judge in the State 
of Illinois. 

At that time there was published at Jacksonville a Demo- 
cratic paper, called the "Jacksonville News," edited by S. S. 
Brooks, Esq. Mr. Brooks, in a letter before us, after stating 
that he commenced the publication of this paper in February, 
1834, says: "My prospectuses were circulated throughout 
Morgan and the adjoining counties, and, immediately after the 
publication of the first number of the paper, most of them were 
returned with lists of names of subscribers on them. Among 
the returned copies of the prospectus was one from Winches- 
ter, with a large number of names, accompanied by a very com- 



FIEST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 17 

plimentary and encouraging letter, signed ' Steph. A. Douglas.' 
Naturally desiring to know something move of my unknown 
friend than the name, I found, upon inquiry, that he was a 
young man from the State of New York, engaged in the hum- 
ble but honorable occupation of school-teacher. A few days 
afterward, say about the first of March, Mr. Douglas visited 
Jacksonville, and a personal introduction followed. In antici- 
pation of his visit, I expected to see a young man, for of such 
was composed the corps of c Yankee schoolmasters' in this state 
at that time ; but in this, my first interview with Douglas, I 
was surprised to see a youth apparently not exceeding seven- 
teen or eighteen years of age. He was not quite ' twenty-one,' 
but was beardless, and remarkably youthful in appearance for 
that age. I was more surprised, however, in the strength of 
his mind, the development of his intellect, and his comprehen- 
sive knowledge of the political history of the country." 

As has been stated in a former part of this book, although 
the state was Democratic, and had voted for General Jackson 
in 1832, public opinion was in a very unsettled and excited 
state respecting some acts of his administration. The " Bank 
Question" was the all-pervading topic of national politics. The 
removal of several cabinet officers, the withdrawal of the gov- 
ernment deposits from the custody of the United States Bank 
in September, 1833, were the leading acts of aggression charged 
against the administration. The bank was contracting its dis- 
counts and circulation, producing panic and consternation 
throughout the state, whose people were expecting internal 
improvements through the aid of external capital. No locality 
in Illiuois was exempt from the excitement. Parties were des- 
ignated " Jackson party" and " Opposition." The hostile feel- 
ings of the two parties in Illinois were intense, and were ex- 
hibited in all the relations of life. Social and business in- 
tercourse was confined, as far as was practicable, to political 
friends. To be a political opponent was, to a great extent, to 
be a personal enemy, and an enemy to the country. At that 
time, in Jacksonville, the supporters of the bank policy of the 
administration were very few. The editor of the " News," 
and perhaps two others, were the only men who dared openly 
justify and maintain the cause of General Jackson. A few 
men, farmers of intelligence in different parts of the county, 
who were independent, and under no obligations of a pecun- 



18 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

iary character to the bank or its friends, were fearless in the 
assertion of their political sentiments. It was the custom in 
those days for nearly the entire population of the county to 
visit the county seat on Saturdays — the men to sell produce, 
trade horses, and talk politics, and the feminine portion to see 
the fashions and do shopping. Consequently, almost every 
Saturday was a kind of seventh day political jubilee for the 
Jackson party, who, if not numerous, gloried in their individ- 
ual and collective pluck, in the justice of their cause, and, of 
course, were not afraid to make a noise. Mr. Douglas opened 
his law office in a room in the court-house building. He soon 
became the political cynosure toward whom the eyes of the 
Democracy of the county were directed. His open, frank, and 
respectful manners, the extraordinary ability and vehemence 
with which he defended the acts of the administration, and the 
remarkable self-possession and confidence which marked all 
his political controversies — and they occurred almost daily — 
soon made him the object of attraction and admiration on one 
side, and of fear and abuse on the other. The Opposition — 
just about that time called " Whigs" — were so arrogant in the 
superiority of their numbers, and so overwhelming in the con- 
trol of public sentiment, that it became necessary for the friends 
of General Jackson to " define their position" in some public 
manner, and effect an organization. After consultation, it was 
deemed by Mr. Douglas and the editor of the News expedient 
to call a mass meeting of the Democrats of the county, to test 
the question whether General Jackson was to be entirely aban- 
doned or heartily supported. The proposition, however, met 
violent opposition from the residue of the party, under the im- 
pression that the people would not turn out to sustain the 
President under the existing panic. The proposition met with 
more favor from the Democrats outside of Jacksonville, but 
still a majority thought the experiment a hazardous one. Not- 
withstanding the fierceness of the Opposition, and the openly 
proclaimed objections of Democrats, hand-bills were issued 
and posted in every town in the county, calling a mass meet- 
ing two weeks hence at the court-house. In the mean time 
resolutions were prepared, endorsing the policy of the Pres- 
ident in refusing to recharter the bank and in removing the 
deposits — two points upon which thousands of Democrats dif- 
fered from the administration. The majority of the Democrats 



FIKST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 19 

thought a bank of some kind indispensable, and the other side 
thought and declared the charter of such an institution to be 
clearly unconstitutional. The resolutions met with fierce oppo- 
sition in the little caucus. When the day of meeting arrived, 
the court-house was thronged; people poured into town hi 
wagons, on horseback, and on foot. At twelve o'clock a larger 
concourse of people had assembled in Jacksonville than had 
ever met there before. Douglas had previously declined the 
duty of offering the resolutions, pleading his youth, his short 
residence in the town, and various personal considerations ; but 
when the hour of meeting arrived, when the court-house was 
filled to its utmost capacity, when the windows were taken 
out to enable those outside in the square to hear the proceed- 
ings within, the gentleman to whom had been assigned the 
duty of presenting the resolutions handed them to Douglas, 
telling him that the opportunity now presented to make an 
impression was an extraordinary one, and should not be neg- 
lected, and was of such personal importance to him (Douglas) 
that he ought not to allow it to pass. At all events, it was 
soon ascertained that unless he presented them they would not 
be offered at all. The meeting having been organized, Doug- 
las boldly advanced, stating that he held in his hands certain 
resolutions which he supposed would meet the approval of all 
Democrats : these resolutions he then read, and, in a brief 
speech, explained and supported them. 

As soon as he had taken his seat, Josiah Lamborn, Esq., a 
lawyer of considerable reputation, subsequently attorney gen- 
eral of the state, a "Whig, and a man of great personal influ- 
ence, followed in opposition to the resolutions. He was severe 
and caustic in reference to Mr. Douglas, and flatly contradict- 
ed a statement of fact made by him. He addressed the meet- 
ing for some time. Douglas immediately arose, and at once 
applied himself to a reply to Lamborn. The question of fact 
he soon disposed of by calling up several Whigs, who declared 
Lamborn to be wrong. He then for an hour or more address- 
ed the meeting in his own peculiar style. The effect was irre- 
sistible. Lamborn precipitately left the room ; and when Doug- 
las concluded his speech, the excitement of the meeting had 
reached the highest point of endurance ; cheer upon cheer was 
given with hearty vigor ; the crowd swayed to and fro to get 
near the orator, and at length he was seized by them, and, borne 



20 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

on the shoulders and upheld by the arms of a dozen of his stal- 
wart admirers, was carried out of the court-house and through 
and around the public square with the most unbounded mani- 
festations of gratitude and admiration. He was greeted with 
varied but most expressive complimentary titles, such as " High- 
combed Cock," "You will be President yet," "Little Giant" 
— which last title, originating at this first public occasion of 
his defense of Democratic principles, is yet, with renewed con- 
fidence in its appropriateness, applied to him by his friends. 

Such was the first appearance of Stephen A. Douglas on the 
theatre of Illinois politics — a theatre that for twenty-five years 
has been the constant scene of unbroken triumphs. As on his 
first appearance he was borne in triumph upon the shoulders 
of his admiring heai«ers, so, for a quarter of a century since 
then, he has been borne upon the hearts of a most generous 
people. He has made their cause his cause, and, in return, they 
have made his cause theirs. 

That day, the personal and political triumph of the newly- 
discovered yet powerful champion of General Jackson's policy 
settled the political destiny of Morgan County for several 
years. The speech itself is remembered to this day ; and the 
old veterans who heard Douglas that day, and who have heard 
him a hundred times since, declare that he has never yet equal- 
ed the first speech he delivered in Jacksonville in March, 1834. 
Morgan Coimty, from that day forth, became Democratic ; the 
Jacksonville News was sustained in its policy. It remain- 
ed Democratic until Douglas had moved to another coimty, 
and the party, feeling secure in its strength, suffered the news- 
paper to fail for want of support, when it became Whig, and 
remained a Whig coimty until, in 1858, it gave a majority for 
Douglas and democracy. 

The history of this meeting was published far and wide in 
the state, and there was a great desire to see and hear the man 
— the youthful David — who had compelled an orator like Lam- 
born to flee from a meeting in his own town. During that 
year an election was held for governor and lieutenant govern- 
or. Joseph Duncan, who for several years had been a repre- 
sentative in Congress, was elected governor, and Alexander 
M. Jenkins lieutenant governor. Neither had a majority : there 
being three tickets in the field, Duncan and Jenkins were elect- 
ed by a plurality of votes. The election took place in August, 



FIRST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 21 

and the new officers were installed in January, 1835. The Leg- 
islature at that session passed an act changing the mode of ap- 
pointing certain officers. State's attorneys had previously been 
appointed by the governor ; this act made them elective by the 
General Assembly in joint convention. The name of Douglas 
was suggested for the office of attorney for the first judicial 
district. His friends — and they were ail friends who knew him 
— if few, were ardent in his support. As soon as the act was 
passed, Mr. Douglas went up to Vandalia, where the Legisla- 
ture was in session. His competitor was John J. Hardin, one 
of the most accomplished lawyers in the state, a gentleman uni- 
versally esteemed and respected, a speaker of the highest or- 
der, an experienced prosecutor, and one who had been favora- 
bly known to the people of the district for years. On the 10th 
of February, 1835, the Legislature met in joint convention to 
elect officers. The vote for state's attorney for the first judi- 
cial circuit being taken — we quote the Journal — " Mr. Stephen 
A. Douglas, Esq., received 38 votes, and John J. Hardin, Esq., 
34 votes for that office ; scattering, 2." 

In the recorded list of the names of those voting for Mr. 
Douglas on that occasion is that of the now venerable John S. 
Hacker, at that time a member of the State Senate ; Mr. 
Hacker, in 1858, was dismissed from a small federal office be- 
cause he refused to support the Republican candidate and op- 
pose Douglas. He had a son in the Legislature of 1858-9 
who voted for Douglas's re-election to the Senate. Another 
name recorded in the list of those who voted for Douglas in 
1835 is that of James Hampton, who, in 1859, as a member of 
the Legislature, had the pleasure of again voting for him — on 
this latter occasion for his re-election to the Senate, over the 
combined fury and bitter hostility of the Republican party and 
federal authorities. 

The election of Douglas to the important office of public 
prosecutor in the most important circuit of the state, over the 
celebrated Hardin, caused great discussion throughout all Il- 
linois. Those of his political friends who knew him were ex- 
travagant in their joy and confident of his success ; those who 
did not know him were doubtful if a mistake had not been 
made, and his enemies openly declared the election an outrage. 
One of the Whig judges of the Supreme Court, who has long 
since expressed the highest opinion of Mr. Douglas's ability, 



22 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

declared that the election was wrong. " What business," he 
asked, " has such a stripling with such an office ? he is no law- 
yer, and has no law-books." A few months sufficed to change 
the judge's opinion, and a fe\f years more found him recog- 
nized as one of the ablest practitioners at the bar of the Su- 
preme Court. We have seen it stated on high authority that 
during the time Mr. Douglas filled the office of state's attor- 
ney, not a siugle indictment drawn by him was ever quashed ; 
and there was probably not a term of the court in any one of 
the many counties comprising the large circuit in which there 
were not more or less criminal cases, embracing, in the aggre- 
gate, crime of almost every grade. His success as a public 
prosecutor, and his personal deportment at the bar, and so- 
cially with the people of the several counties to which the 
duties of his office carried him, rapidly* confirmed the high 
opinions expressed by his friends, and gradually removed all 
the prejudice which had been created against him by oppo- 
nents at the time of his election. 

An incident that took place during the early days of his at- 
torneyship will illustrate the difficulties he had to encounter, 
and the promptness and energy with which he met and con- 
verted what was intended as a painful humiliation into a proud 
personal and professional triumph. It was his first term in 
M'Lean County. There had been some local law violated, and 
the number of offenders were numerous. The attorney pro- 
ceeded in the discharge of his duty with great zeal. He sat 
up all night writing his indictments, and actually closed the 
business in a short time. The Grand Jury found the bills as 
prepared, and were forthwith discharged. The bar, having ob- 
tained a hint that the new attorney was to be caught and pub- 
licly disgraced, waited the denouement with anxiety. The 
morning after the Grand Jury had been discharged the crisis 
came. A member of the bar, then, as now, one of the most 
distinguished lawyers of the state, at the opening of the court, 
moved to quash all the indictments found at that term, fifty in 
number, on the ground that they alleged the offenses charged 
in them as having been committed in "MClean County," a 
county unknown to the laws of the State of Illinois, the 
county in which the court was then sitting, and in which the 
parties were residing, being "M'Lean County." In other 
words, that the prosecuting attorney had misspelled the name 



FIKST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 23 

of the county. The objection, if valid, was a fatal one ; and 
the Grand Jury having been discharged, there was no oppor- 
tunity to correct the error in spelling. The triumphal glances 
of the bar, the sharp inquiry of the court if the state's attor- 
ney had any thing to say, would have disheartened even a 
more practiced attorney. The objection was stated in clear 
and forcible terms ; not a lawyer at the bar could see how it 
was to be overcome ; and when the counsel who made the mo- 
tion took his seat, the laughter and merriment at the counsel- 
table was only equaled by the loud satisfaction expressed in 
the lobby by the friends and neighbors of the accused. The 
motion was an entire surprise to the attorney — at least he so 
expressed himself. He insisted that before the court should 
decide the question, the original act of the Legislature estab- 
lishing the county should be produced ; when that was done, 
he informed the court he would possibly have something to 
say on the motion, if, indeed, that motion was persisted in. 
This was said with so much confidence and earnestness, and, 
withal, the position taken was so correct, that the court de- 
cided that the attorney was entitled to what he had asked, 
and that, as the proof required was so easily obtained, counsel 
should produce the act establishing the county. A number of 
acts of the Legislature were at once produced, all referring to 
the county as " M'Lean" County, and the evidence that that 
was the proper legal name of the county, and had been so rec- 
ognized through several years of legislation, was positively 
overwhelming. During the reading of these acts, the remarks 
of counsel, the emphasis with which the orthography of the 
name of the county was delivered, was terrible. Several per- 
sons approached Douglas and whispered that he would save 
himself much useless mortification by giving up the contest, 
and allowing the indictments to be quashed. He refused. 
There happened at that time to be no copy of the statute es- 
tablishing the county in Bloomington ; Mr. Douglas insisted 
that the name of the county could only be determined legally 
by the recital of that act, and, until it was produced, he must 
insist that the court could not decide that the indictments 
were fatally defective. He bid the counsel who made the 
motion, as well as the crowd who seemed to think the escape 
of criminals but a small matter compared with the professional 
discomfiture of an attorney, to beware of the consequences of 



24 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

thus pandering to a contempt of the appointed officers of the 
law. He rejected promptly the proposition to accept the se- 
ries of statutes read as denning the proper name of the county. 
The matter dropped for the present. 

That night, and the next day and evening, the legal frater- 
nity, including jurors, witnesses, and litigants, were made 
merry over jocular criticisms upon schoolmasters turned law- 
yers, upon schoolmasters being unable to spell the name of 
one of the largest counties in the state. Witticisms flew fast 
and thick, and counsel repeatedly urged that they dare not 
proceed with business until the question was settled how to 
spell the name of the county. Mr. Douglas kept his own coun- 
sel : that he felt the importance to him personally and profes- 
sionally of this point was evident to all. His friends could 
not understand the courage with which he met the motion, 
nor the boldness with which he repelled every open assault. 
They imputed his defiant tone to bravado, and his demand for 
the statute as a mere excuse for delay, to gain time in which 
to make up his mind whether to resign his office and leave the 
state, or to go back to keeping school. In the mean time, mes- 
sengers had been sent to Peoria and elsewhere for a copy of 
the acts of 1830-1. 

The one party was confident that its production would be 
the last nail in the professional coffin of an aspiring individual 
who, a few months ago, had defeated one of the best lawyers 
in the state, and had attained the best attorneyship in the gift 
of the Legislature. The court was in session when the messen- 
gers returned ; one glance at the book, and counsel rose and 
asked the court to dispose of the motion to quash the indict- 
ments. All was excitement. The state's attorney had also 
glanced at the book. He rose as defiant as ever, and demand- 
ed the reading of the statute. Lawyers crowded around the 
counsel who held the statute in his hand, and were perfectly 
astounded at the effrontery of the prosecutor. Profert of the 
statute Avas made ; the court asked counsel to read it, and 
counsel read, amid profound silence, the words, "An Act to 
establish M'Lean County," and turned triumphantly toward 
the attorney for the state. That gentleman, instead of being 
annihilated by the tone or manner, or by the words read, 
quietly stated that the title of the act was not the act itself, 
and demanded that the whole act should be read. The court 



FIRST STRUGGLES IN ILLINOIS. 25 

said that counsel must, as it was demanded, read the statute. 
He at once read the first section : 

" Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the people of the State of Illinois, 
represented in the General Assembly, that all that part of 
country lying within the following boundaries, to wit, Begin- 
ning," etc., etc., " shall constitute a new county, to be called 
McLean? 

There was a pause — a suspension of public opinion — and the 
silence was broken by the demand of the prosecutor that the 
other sections be read. Section 2 did not contain the name of 
the county ; section 3 repeated it twice, and each time by the 
name of " McLean ;" sections 4 and 5 made no mention of the 
name, and section 6 and last named Bloomington as the " seat 
of justice of said county of McLean." The attorney, in draw- 
ing his indictment, had omitted the apostrophe, and capitalized 
the C, using a small 1. He had employed the exact letters of 
the body of the statute ; the other side, seeing a capital C, a 
small 1, and no apostrophe, had been caught in the very trap 
in which they thought the attorney had placed himself. Of 
course, the motion was overruled. The joke was turned, the 
laugh was on the other side ; and the crowd, now regarding 
the whole thing as a most dexterous plan deliberately laid by 
the prosecutor to catch the able lawyers with whom he had 
to contend, gave him an applause and a credit vastly increased 
in enthusiasm by the previous impression that he had been 
thoroughly victimized by his opponents. 

In the winter of 1835-6 — the one following his election as 
state's attorney — the expediency of uniting the party, and ef- 
fecting an organization so as to concentrate its powers, and en- 
able them to elect the candidates to be chosen at the succeed- 
ing election, was duly presented by Mr. Douglas. The Jack- 
sonville News, editorially and by communication, urged the 
propriety of holding a county convention to nominate candi- 
dates to be supported by the whole party. The result of these 
proceedings was that the Democracy did unite, did effect an 
organization, and did call a county convention, the first ever 
held in Morgan County. It was a new and hazardous move- 
ment. The county was entitled to six members of the Legis- 
lature, and the county offices to be filled were valuable. It 
had been customary for all candidates to run relying upon 
their personal popularity and their personal exertions to ob- 

B 



26 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tain support. The proposition to limit the number of Demo- 
cratic candidates to one individual for each office was a start- 
ling proposition. Often as many as ten or fifteen candidates 
would be before the people for the same office, and Mr. Brooks 
assures us that he has seen no less than eighteen names an- 
nounced as candidates for the office of sheriff. The county was 
decidedly Whig, and the only hope of success was to unite as 
far as possible the Democracy upon one candidate for each of- 
fice. 

The county convention was held in April. The day having 
arrived for its assemblage, Jacksonville Avas filled with people, 
drawn thither by the novelty of the occasion. The Whigs 
were there in large numbers; they confidently expected that 
Douglas would be defeated hi his effort to reduce the aspira- 
tions of individuals to the measure of party success. The fail- 
ure of the convention was predicted from the beginning. The 
candidates to be selected were numerous: two senators, six 
representatives, one sheriff, three county commissioners, one 
coroner, and perhaps others of minor importance. The num- 
ber of aspirants for these nominations was large. The conven- 
tion was conducted with great dignity and decorum. The 
nominations were received with great approbation, every pre- 
cinct being represented by delegates, and by a large attend- 
ance of lookers-on. Much to the disappointment of the Oppo- 
sition, there was but one dissatisfied man — one of the candi- 
dates for sheriff " bolted" the nomination, run as an independ- 
ent candidate, and, though personally popular, and encour- 
aged in his course by the Whigs, suffered a most inglorious de- 
feat. The Whigs, alarmed at the union of the Democrats, 
united upon a ticket also. At the head of the ticket for repre- 
sentatives they placed the gallant John J. Hardin. There was 
no man on the Democratic ticket who was able to oppose Har- 
din in debate. Douglas at once took the stump, and met Har- 
din every where. He was asked why he, who was not a can- 
didate, should canvass the county when the whole Democratic 
ticket was afraid to meet their opponents. The taunt at that 
time had its force. The Democracy wavered. At length, so 
disastrously did the contest appear, that one of the candidates 
on the Democratic ticket consented to give way, and, by unan- 
imous desire, Mr. Douglas was placed on the ticket. He then 
met llardin, and together they canvassed Morgan County as it 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 27 

had never been canvassed before, and perhaps not since. The 
convention system inaugurated by Douglas was the object of 
special attack. He bore the brunt of the battle as he has ever 
done, and repelled the assaults of his opponents. He appealed 
to the people to elect, not himself, but the ticket. He fought 
the first fight in behalf of regular nominations, and the people 
of Illinois have fought that fight for him on repeated occasions 
since then. The contest continued up to the day of election. 
The result was that the entire Democratic ticket was elected, 
save and except one of the candidates for representative. Gen- 
eral Hardin, leading his ticket, was elected over one of the 
Democratic nominees. This determined the success of the con- 
vention system, and the success of Douglas in thus redeeming 
an old Whig county was properly appreciated by the Democ- 
racy throughout the state. 



CHAPTER III. 

LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 

On the first Monday in December, 1836, Mr. Douglas took 
his seat in the most important Legislature that ever assembled 
in the State of Illinois. It was at that session that the great 
project of internal improvements was brought to a successful 
legislative approval. The country was wild with speculation. 
Schemes of improvements were pressed from every quarter. 
We have already given a list of the acts incorporating rail- 
road and canal companies passed at the two previous sessions. 
The United States Bank was no more ; state banks were ex- 
panding with a fearful momentum ; the State of Illinois was 
pressed to become a partner in the institutions which were to 
furnish capital to "the state and her citizens to enable them to 
prosecute an advancement that was to equal almost in celerity 
and magnificence the magic achievements of the genii that 
obeyed Aladdin's lamp and ring. The people had gone be- 
yond their representatives. Many counties instructed unwill- 
ing or reluctant representatives to vote for the schemes of 
promised wealth and grandeur. The Legislature met, a ma- 
jority of its members pledged personally or by instructions to 
vote for the Internal Improvement Bill. The Legislature met 



28 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

on the 5th of December. In the House were W. A. Richard- 
son, John J. Hardin, James Semple, Robert Smith, Abraham 
Lincoln, S. A. Douglas, John Calhoun (of Lecompton memory), 
John A. M'Clernand, Augustus C. French, James Shields, and 
other men whose names have since been written brightly on 
our national history. At that session the Hon. R. M. Young 
was elected United States Senator for six years from March, 
1837. The governor, in his message, reviewed in terms of 
strong condemnation the financial policy of General Jackson, 
impeaching his conduct, and censuring his motives and pur- 
poses. After a warm debate, that part of the message refer- 
ring to federal affairs was referred to a select committee. On 
the 23d of December, the committee, through the Hon. John A. 
M'Clernand, its chairman, made a report, concluding with res- 
olutions approving the general course of General Jackson's ad- 
ministration, and disavowing the correctness of the charges 
made in the governor's message. The debate on these resolu- 
tions was protracted and warm. It was participated in by 
nearly all the prominent men on both sides. The main con- 
test, however, was between Douglas and Hardin, the rival rep- 
resentatives from Morgan County. The debate covered the en- 
tire policy of General Jackson. The resolutions were adopted. 

Mr. Douglas was appointed chairman of the Committee on 
Petitions. Early in the session a petition was presented, pray- 
ing, on behalf of one Henry King, that he be divorced from his 
wife Eunice. That petition was committed to Mr. Douglas's 
hands. The Legislature had for several years been accustom- 
ed to granting divorces, and applications for that kind of re- 
lief were annually increasing in number and importance. Mr. 
Douglas made a report upon the subject of divorces, and the 
powers and duties of the Legislature in relation to the mat- 
ter, concluding with the following resolution : "Resolved, that 
it is unconstitutional, and foreign to the duties of legislation, 
for the Legislature to grant bills of divorce." This was de- 
bated, Mr. Hardin approving of the resolution, but objecting to 
the word "unconstitutional," which he moved to strike out. 
Douglas replied, and the House, by a vote of 53 yeas to 32 
nays, adopted the resolution as reported. That was an end to 
divorces by the Legislature in Illinois. 

It having been soon demonstrated that some system of in- 
ternal improvements, to which the state was to be a party, was 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 29 

to be passed, the question "became important which of the two 
leading plans suggested should be adopted. These plans were 
substantially as follows : 

fist; That the state should select certain leading and most 
important works, which should b^ owned, constructed, and 
worked exclusively by the state. J2d» That the state should 
subscribe to a certain share — one fourth, one third, or one 
half — of the stock of the several railroad and land companies 
then incorporated, or which should thereafter be incorj)orated 
by the state. 

These plans had their advocates and friends. The latter 
plan was the favorite of the speculators ; under it the several 
companies could organize by the payment of a few dollars on 
each share, and then obtain the subscription by the state in 
full. Had this plan been adopted, the state would have been 
the contributor of all the actual cash capital, and would have 
had no proprietorship or control of the works. We have 
shown that, at the time the Legislature met, there were com- 
panies incorporated authorized to construct over 3400 miles 
of railroad and canal ; the capital to do this work, estimated at 
the moderate sum of $30,000 a mile, would have made an ag- 
gregate (supposing no other works to be proposed) of over 
$100,000,000, into which enterprise the state would soon be 
led to at least one third of the entire amount. 

Mr. Douglas was personally opposed to any system to which 
the state was to be a party ; but, in obedience to instructions, 
and yielding to the necessity of favoring the least objection- 
able to prevent the adoption of the greater enormity, he favor- 
ed the first-mentioned plan. Accordingly, early in the session 
he submitted the following resolutions indicating the plan 
which he viewed most favorably : 

JResolved, that the Committee on Internal Improvements be 
instructed to report a bill for the commencement of a general 
system of internal improvements, as follows : 

The bill shall provide, 

1st. For the completion of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 

2d. For the construction of a railroad from the termination 
of said canal to the mouth of the Ohio River. 

3d. For the construction of a railroad from Quincy, on the 
Mississippi River, eastward to the state line, in the direction 
of the Wabash and Erie Canal. 



30 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

4th. For the improvement of the navigation of the Illinois 
and Wabash Rivers. 

5th. For making surveys and estimates of such other works 
as may be considered of general utility. 

Resolved, that as the basis of the system, the improvements 
shall be constructed and owned by the state exclusively. 

Resolved, that for the purposes aforesaid, a loan of 
millions of dollars should be effected on the faith of the state, 
payable in such installments and at such times as shall be re- 
quired in the progress of the works. 

Resolved, that portions of the lands granted to the state to 
aid in the construction of the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
should be sold from time to time, and the proceeds applied to 
the payment of interest on the said loan, until the tolls on the 
proposed improvements, together with such other means as 
the state may provide, shall be sufficient to pay the interest on 
such loan. 

These resolutions were referred to the Committee of the 
Whole, and upon them, as well as upon the bill which was sub- 
sequently reported, long, eventful, and important discussions 
took place. This plan was unfortunately rejected. It pro- 
posed the commencement of two roads, one traversing the 
state from north to south, the other from east to west, leav- 
ing to future Legislatures the task of providing for such other 
works as time, experience, and practical surveys and explora- 
tions might recommend. The idea of constructing two rail- 
roads only was too insignificant for the magnificent views of 
that day. A hundred roads would not have answered the 
pressing demands of an excited people, flushed with the de- 
ceitful prosperity of an inflated system of paper currency. To 
confine the works to these two roads would also have prevent- 
ed the necessity for the state to embark as a partner in the 
state banks. The state was asked to authorize an increase in 
the banking capital of the state, to become a large stockholder 
in the state bank, and to make the state bank and its branches 
the depositories and fiscal agents of the state. All these prop- 
ositions, presented in their most seductive forms, met with a 
firm, uncompromising hostility from Mr. Douglas. But the 
state was mad; no man could resist the storm which swept 
over it; and the entire system — internal improvements, in- 
crease of bank' capital, subscription to the stock by the state, 



LEGISLATOE, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 31 

all passed by the most decided majorities, in February, 1837, 
and the Legislature adjourned on the 8th of March following. 

A brief synopsis of the "Act to establish and maintain a 
general System of Improvements," approved February 27, 
1837, may not be out of place here. 

The act directs a survey of the route from Charleston, via 
the county seat of Clark County, to the most eligible point on 
the Great Wabash River between York and the line dividing 
the states of Illinois and Indiana. It makes appropriations as 
follows on account of the works enumerated : 

1st. Improvement of the navigation of the Great Wabash River. $100,000 

2d. For removal of obstacles to steam-boat navigation in Rock 
River 100,000 

3d. For the Illinois River west of the 3d principal meridian.... 100,000 

4th. Kaskaskia River 50,000 

5th. Little Wabash River 50,000 

6th. For a great Western mail route from Vincennes to Saint 
Louis 250,000 

7th. For a railroad from Cairo to some point on the southern 
termination of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, via Vandalia, 
Shelbyville, Decatur, Bloomington, thence via Savannah to Galena 3,500,000 

8th. For a southern cross-railroad from Alton to Mount Car- 
mel ; railroad from Edwardsville to Shawneetown, via Lebanon, 
Nashville, Pinckneyville, Frankfort, and Equality 1,600,000 

9th. For a northern cross-railroad from Quincy, via Columbus, 
Clayton, Mount Sterling, Meredosia, Jacksonville, Springfield, 
Decatur, Sidney, Danville, and thence to the Indiana state line... 1,800,000 

10th. For a branch of the Central Railroad from a point be- 
tween Hillsboro and Shelbyville, thence through Coles and Edgar 
counties to the Indiana state line 650,000 

11th. For a railroad from Peoria, through Fulton, Macomb, 
Carthage, to Warsaw 700,000 

12th. For a railroad from Lower Alton, via Hillsboro, to the 
Illinois Central Road 600,000 

13th. For a railroad from Belleville, via Lebanon, to intersect 
the Alton and Mount Carmel Railroad 150,000 

14th. For a railroad from Bloomington to Mackinaw, in Taze- 
well County, there to fork — one branch to connect with Peoria and 
Warsaw Railroad at Peoria, the other branch to pass Tremont to 
Pekin 350,000 

A person who will take up the map of Illinois will see 
in the above scheme of improvements how carefully Chicago 
is avoided. South of and including Peoria, every representa- 
tive and senatorial district is provided with one or more rail- 
roads passing through them. But, to make the bill even more 



32 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

palatable, the following provision was inserted, being the 15th 
appropriation : 

15th. There shall be appropriated the sum of $200,000 of the first money 
that shall be obtained under the provisions of this act, to be drawn by the 
several counties in a ratable proportion to the census last made, through 
which no railroad or canal is provided to be made at the expense or cost of 
the State of Illinois, which said money shall be expended in the improvement 
of roads, constructing bridges, and other public works. 

Section 21 authorized the board of fund commissioners to 
contract for loans, etc., of eight millions of dollars at 6 per cent., 
redeemable at any time after January 1, 1870. Another sec- 
tion provided that all moneys obtained by the board from loans 
and otherwise should be deposited in some safe bank or banks. 
Section 33 authorized the commissioners, in locating the several 
roads w T here the lines did not touch county seats or important 
trading towns, to construct lateral branches of said railroads 
to said towns. 

Another important measure of that session was the continu- 
ation of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, which had j>reviously 
been commenced by the state, a grant of land to aid in its con- 
struction having been made by Congress. Douglas was an 
active and earnest supporter of this great work. Upon the 
best plan for constructing it there was a wide diversity of 
opinion. The "deep cut" was one plan, and eventually was 
adopted. It proposed a canal to be fed from the lake at Chi- 
cago, and to run along the Illinois River to its present termina- 
tion, having all the necessary lockage and dams. The other 
plan was to put locks and dams upon the Illinois River, making 
it navigable for steam-boats up to the very highest point, and 
then connecting it by a canal to be constructed thence to Chi- 
cago. Douglas favored the latter plan. After a long and an- 
imated contest, the two houses found themselves unable to 
agree. The House of Representatives adopted and adhered 
to for many weeks that plan which had been so strenuously 
urged and approved by Douglas, while the Senate as strenu- 
ously adhered to the other plan. For several weeks the con- 
test between the two houses waxed warm ; at last, there be- 
ing great danger that the whole measure would fail, the Senate 
bill was somewhat modified (though its main features were re- 
tained) by a committee of which Douglas was a member, and 
was passed, he giving it his support, as better than no bill at 
all. Subsequent experience has not confirmed the wisdom of 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 33 

the Legislature. The plan adopted of a deep cut from the 
lake was in after years abandoned. Had the plan proposed by 
Douglas been adopted, the canal could have been completed 
for a sum less by several millions than would have been re- 
quired to carry out the plan adopted by the Legislature. His 
speeches on this and other subjects at this session of the Leg- 
islature won for him the highest credit ; his fame as an orator, 
but especially as a ready debater, was universal, and public 
men in all parts of the state sought his acquaintance and 
friendship. 

The Legislature adjourned in March, having laid the founda- 
tion of a public debt which, for nearly a quarter of a century, 
has loomed up, in all its hideous proportions, an object of ter- 
ror and of oppression to the people of the great and fertile 
State of Illinois. All was excitement ; the Legislature, before 
adjourning, elected the commissioners for the several works 
of improvements, and the number of officers necessary to carry 
on the grand system was by no means a small one. For a few 
weeks all seemed prosperous and brilliant. In May the banks 
of the entire country suspended specie payments, and then 
came a revulsion. The state bank and its branches went down 
with the others ; the alliance between the state and the banks 
proved an unfortunate one. It is unnecessary to state more 
than the general result. The Illinois banks never resumed pay- 
ment ; the stock sunk very low ; their paper depreciated as 
low at times as fifty or forty cents on the dollar ; the state lost 
all, or nearly all that it had subscribed ; and, after five or six 
years, the charters were repealed, and Illinois continued with- 
out banks until, under the new Constitution some years later, 
a general banking law was adopted. The Legislature, at that 
same session, passed an act providing for the removal of the 
seat of government from Vandalia to Springfield, the removal 
to take place on the 4th of July, 1839. 

In April, 1837, Mr. Douglas was appointed by the President 
register of the land office at Springfield, to which place he re- 
moved at once, and consequently vacated his seat in the Leg- 
islature. 

In consequence of the panic and its prospective effects upon 
the system of internal improvements, Governor Duncan called 
a special session of the Legislature to meet in July of that year. 

The signs of the times were portentous of a storm such as 

B 2 



34 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the country had never experienced ; the commercial world had 
already experienced some of its most destructive force. The 
political sky was dark unto blackness. On the 4th of March 
a Democratic president had been inaugurated. He had been 
elected by a majority most decisive. A Congress had been 
chosen, in which those elected as his party friends were in a 
large majority. Financial ruin and general bankruptcy stood 
vividly conspicuous in the imagined future. " Mr. Van Buren 
called an extra session of Congress. His first message pro- 
posed, as a remedy for the present and a preventive for the 
future, that long-abused and now cherished scheme, the Sub- 
Treasury. It was popularly styled the " Divorce Bill." It was 
to separate forever all connection between the banks and the 
national government. Mr. Van Buren soon found himself de- 
serted by his party friends not only in Congress, but through- 
out the country. Nowhere was the defection greater than in 
Illinois. The delegation in Congress (all Democrats) refused 
to vote for the Divorce Bill — two of them giving as their rea- 
son a desire to consult with their constituents. These two 
subsequently continued Democrats, and one of them is now 
an honored and venerable member of the party in Illinois ; the 
other never returned, and finally went over to the Opposition. 
The governor of the state, elected as a Democrat, renewed the 
assaults upon Mr. Van Buren which at the previous session he 
had made upon General Jackson. Members of the Legislature 
quailed before the storm. Many faltered, and a few openly 
joined the Whigs. Mr. Buchanan, with his peculiar faculty 
of finding and rewarding old traitors to the Democratic party, 
in 1858 rescued from an oblivion of over twenty years, to which 
he had been consigned by the Democracy of Illinois, one of 
these men who had so basely abandoned his party in the dark 
hour of its peril, and conferred upon him an office from which 
an honest, honorable gentleman was removed because he was 
a friend of Douglas! In 1837 the traitor was applauded by 
the Opposition for opposing his party, and in 1858 Mr. Bu- 
chanan heaped honors upon the same man for a like treachery ! 
The Democracy was dismayed. For years they had had pos- 
session of the state government and all its patronage. The 
Legislature and the governor, both elected as Democratic, were 
now opposed to them. Necessity demanded earnest and prompt 
measures for defense. The Opposition were strong, united, 



35 

and led by able, gallant men. As soon as the Legislature as- 
sembled Mr. Douglas proceeded to Vandalia. The benefit of 
the convention system, in uniting and concentrating the party 
in a close contest, had been demonstrated by him in Morgan 
County. No state convention of either party had ever been 
held in Illinois. A meeting of the Democratic members of the 
Legislature and other persons was held on July 27, 1837, to 
adopt some means to produce concert of action by the party 
in the elections of the ensuing year, and to prevent, if possible, 
any farther disintegration of the party. The result of this 
meeting was a call for a Democratic state delegate convention, 
to meet at Yandalia in the December following, to nominate 
candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. A commit- 
tee of thirty of the most distinguished Democrats of the state 
was appointed to prepare and publish an address to the peo- 
ple of the state upon the existing condition of affairs, political 
and financial. Douglas, Shields, Richardson, M'Clernand, and 
Smith were members of this committee. A state central com- 
mittee of five from each congressional district was also ap- 
pointed. Thus was formed the organization of the Democratic 
party in the State of Illinois — an organization which has re- 
mained unbroken and unconquered for nearly a quarter of a 
century. In another place will be found its progressive his- 
tory from 1837 to 1860. 

The address shortly after appeared, and was published and 
circulated extensively throughout the state. It had much ef- 
fect in staying the disaffection in the party produced by the 
general prostration of business and the urgent counsels of 
those public men who had abandoned the party. In the mean 
time, political discussions, generally of the warmest character, 
were frequent ; and at most of these, now in Springfield, and 
now in some other city or county, Douglas braved the storm 
and upheld the banners of the Democratic party. The finan- 
cial remedy proposed by Mr. Van Buren was particularly de- 
fended. It fully agreed with the policy which, during the 
winter before, he had so laboriously but so unavailingly urged 
upon the Legislature with respect to state affairs. He had op- 
posed and denounced the connection of the state and its finan- 
ces with the banks, and had predicted that the results of such 
a union would be disastrous. Time unfortunately proved that 
the predictions were well founded. 



36 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The state at that time had three members of Congress, 
elected from separate districts. That part of the state lying 
south of Morgan and Sangamon counties included two dis- 
tricts, while the vast region extending northward to the lake 
and to the Wisconsin line was all embraced in one district. 
The convention system was again put into operation, and the 
several counties sent delegates to Peoria in November, 1837, 
to nominate a candidate for Congress from this large district 
— the election not to take place until August, 1838, and the 
member elected not to take his seat until December, 1839. 
The convention was held, and the contest for nomination was 
an active one. Mr. Douglas was nominated ; he was under 
twenty-five years of age at that time. The vast territory em- 
braced within the district had been rapidly increasing in pop- 
ulation during the previous five years ; the work on the canal 
had drawn thousands of laborers to that part of the state. 
Politicians had heretofore confined their operations to the cen- 
tral and southern part of the state, and the north had been 
suffered to go uncared for. The great contest of 1840 was 
approaching, and it was necessary that this extensive region 
should be visited and secured for the party. Mr. Douglas 
was thought to be the man for the task. At the election in 
1836, that district had given Harrison a majority of above three 
thousand over Van Buren. Unless it were attended to, the 
whole state would be in peril. With but faint hopes of an 
election, but with strong determination to strengthen the party 
by urging a union and combination hitherto unpracticed, if not 
unknown, he accepted the nomination. His opponent was 
the Hon. John T. Stuart, an eminent lawyer, a fine speaker, 
and a gentleman long and favorably known to the people. 
During the winter the contest was rather of a " scattering" 
character, but as soon as the spring opened sufficiently to ad- 
mit of traveling, the two candidates set out upon their cam- 
paign, which, commencing in March, did not close until the 
very night before election. 

This canvass is regarded as the most wonderful, under all 
the circumstances, that was ever held in the West. The can- 
didates rode from town to town, speaking together every day 
except Sundays. The man who takes up the map of Illinois 
and looks at the territory embraced in that district, will not 
be surprised to know that, although the candidates spoke six 



LEGISLATOE, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 37 

days a week for five months, they were still unable to visit 
every place. The excitement produced by the contest was 
very great. The Democrats at first had but little hope of 
electing their candidate, but as account followed account of 
the wonderful effect produced by Douglas's speeches, their ex- 
pectations took a different turn. As the day of election ap- 
proached the anxiety became intense. It required great pow- 
ers of endurance to go through the contest, and thousands 
who had firmly believed that the slight frame of Douglas 
would fail under the protracted effort were astounded to hear 
that he continued as fresh to all appearances as his large and 
finely-formed opponent. In August the election took place ; 
the excitement was only increased by the imperfect returns 
received. There was no telegraph nor railroads at that time, 
and returns were slow in reaching county seats, and still slow- 
er in reaching the seat of government. For weeks the state 
was in suspense. It was soon ascertained that the aggregate 
vote exceeded 36,000, and that the majority either way would 
not exceed twenty. Returns came imperfectly made up, and 
were sent back for correction. Errors and mistakes were dis- 
covered, and friends on both sides were industriously engaged 
for weeks in having these corrected. Hundreds of votes were 
cast for " Stephen Douglas," and for Douglas with various oth- 
er and misplaced initials. Votes were in a like manner given 
for Mr. Stuart with his initials and given names transposed 
or misstated. The majority, however, of these errors were on 
the Douglas tickets. At one precinct on the canal Douglas 
lost a large vote by a trick of one of the bosses, who had tick- 
ets prepared with the name of S. A. Douglas printed in large 
type, but placed as a candidate for the Legislature. At last 
the state officers announced the official canvass, and by it Stu- 
art was declared to have a majority of five votes. 

On the 4th of March following (1839) Mr. Douglas address- 
ed a letter to Mr. Stuart, setting forth the difficulties existing 
in ascertaining the true wishes of the majority of the people 
of the district, and proposing that they should sign an agree- 
ment to the following effect : 

1. That the state officers should again canvass the vote ac- 
cording to the returns, and give to Stephen A. Douglas and 
John T. Stuart respectively all the votes polled for them, with- 
out reference to the spelling of their names ; or, that the 



38 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

state canvassers should throw out all the misspelled names, 
and count only those where the votes were recorded for John 
T. Stuart or Stephen A. Douglas. 

2. That, in case the state officers declined, the recount be 
made by friends chosen by the parties. 

3. That three persons be chosen to visit each county and ex- 
amine the original poll-books, and report the number given for 
Stuart and Douglas respectively, by whatever initial ; or re- 
port the number given for John T. Stuart and Stephen A. 
Douglas. 

4. That both resign all claim to the election, and run the 
race over again. 

These propositions, he said, he made to " avoid the trouble, 
excitement, delay, and expense of a contested election." 

Mr. Stuart, on the 13th of March, answered by respectfully 
yet firmly declining each and every of the propositions, as he 
had no doubt as to the fact of his election. That ended the 
matter so far as Mr. Douglas was concerned. He had resigned 
his office to enter the canvass in 1838, and had, during the 
whole year, neglected his professional pursuits. He had nei- 
ther the time nor the means to expend in prosecuting a con- 
test for the seat. 

The Democratic State Convention, which met in December, 
1837, nominated James W. Stephenson for governor, and John 
S. Hacker for lieutenant governor. In April, 1 838, Mr. Hacker 
withdrew from the contest, and Mr. Stephenson, who was 
charged with being a defaulter, also withdrew. Being a pub- 
lic defaulter had not, at that time, become such a political vir- 
tue as to entitle an individual guilty of it with the exclusive 
management and control of the party. It remained for a pres- 
ident in 1858 to make official crime the badge of executive 
approbation in Illinois. The state convention was recalled to 
assemble June 5th, 1838, and Thomas Carlin was nominated 
for governor, and S. H. Anderson for lieutenant governor. 
These gentlemen were subsequently elected, and entered upon 
the duties of their office in January, 1839. 

The renown achieved by Douglas in his campaign with Mr. 
Stuart was most extensive. He was not considered as defeat- 
ed ; his election was claimed by the Democratic party ; and 
the state officers, all of them belonging to the Opposition, were 
charged with having patched up the returns in order to give 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 39 

the certificate to his opponent. This charge, however, was 
untrue as far as the state canvassers were concerned, though, 
doubtless, it was justly made against some of the county of- 
ficials. On the 9th of October, 1838, there was a great ban- 
quet given at the city of Quincy to Governor Carlin and Mr. 
Douglas, at which the latter was the great object of interest. 
One of the active men at that demonstration was the Hon. I. 
N. Morris, who now represents that district in Congress. 
The Opposition were not indifferent to the result. On the 29th 
of September a grand barbacue was given at Springfield, in 
celebration of the great victory gained in the defeat of Doug- 
las. It was attended by all the leading Whigs of the state, and 
so important was the result considered that one of the judges 
of the Supreme Court left the bench and presided on the occa- 
sion. 

Mr. Douglas, after the election was over, entered into part- 
nership with a Mr. Urquhart, and announced his intention to 
devote himself exclusively to the law. But it was idle for him 
to attempt to withdraw from politics. Already he had become 
the acknowledged champion of democracy, and the ablest de- 
bater on the stump. Nor was the acknowledgment of his 
ability confined to his efforts on the stump; he already was 
distinguished at the bar, and in all important cases he was 
found on one side or the other ; yet, whenever the party de- 
manded a defense, whenever Democratic principles required 
an advocate, he was called from his office, and put forward to 
meet the array of the opposition. At that time some contro- 
versy arose about the famous " resolutions of '98," which had 
been assailed or ridiculed by the Whig orators of that vicinity, 
and on the 9th of March, 1839, an immense meeting was held 
at Springfield, and Mr. Douglas addressed it in a learned and 
able explanation and defense of those resolutions. The speech 
is represented by the newspapers of the time as having si- 
lenced the Opposition in their derisive assaults upon those ven- 
erable landmarks of Democratic truth. 

The Legislature met in the winter of 1838-39, and, on the 
9th of January, Governor Carlin appointed the Hon. John A. 
M'Clernand secretary of state, and communicated the nomina- 
tion to the Senate. The Senate, instead of confirming or re- 
jecting the nomination, adopted a resolution declaring that, 
as there was no vacancy in the office of secretary of state, the 



40 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

governor could not appoint any person to the office. The ef- 
fect of this action of the Senate was to keep Mr. Alexander P. 
Field, the then secretary of state, in his office, and to deny to 
the governor the power of removal. The feeling growing 
out of this action was very great. After repeated efforts to 
obtain the office, after the adjournment of the Legislature, a 
bill was filed before the Circuit Court, and the case of the 
People, ex relatione John A. M'Clernand vs. A. P. Field, came 
up in the Circuit Court before Judge Breese, and was argued 
elaborately. Judge Breese delivered a very able opinion, con- 
firming the power of the governor to remove the secretary of 
state. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. In July, 
1839, the Supreme Court met at Springfield, and the appeal 
was taken up. The array of counsel was brilliant : Levi Davis, 
Cyrus Walker, Colonel Field, and Justin Butterfield repre- 
sented Mr. Field, and WicklifFe Kitchell (attorney general), 
Jesse B. Thomas, S. A. Douglas, J. A. M'Clernand, and James 
Shields appeared for the relator. The argument occupied four 
entire days, and is represented by contemporaneous writers as 
having been of the very highest character. Mr. Douglas's ar- 
gument was regarded as so conclusive by the parties agreeing 
with him that it was published in extenso in the papers of 
that day. 

The court consisted of four judges. Judge Brown set up 
the plea of being a relative of one of the parties, and refused 
to sit in the cause ; Judges Lockwood and Wilson overruled 
the decision of Judge Breese, thus confirming the right of Mr. 
Field to retain the office in defiance of the governor. Judge 
Smith dissented from this opinion. 

For some considerable time previous to this decision, a party 
had been gradually forming, and daily growing more numer- 
ous, having for their purpose a constitutional reorganization 
of the Supreme Court. This decision confirmed many in the 
impression that the court had become a mere political instru- 
ment, which, through the exercise of judicial functions, was to 
be used to promote party ends. The court, invested as it 
was, together with the governor, with the veto power, was a 
formidable auxiliary of the Whig party. Its members, as the 
Council of Revision, could hold governor and Legislature in 
check, and accomplish indirectly all the ends sought by the 
minority. A new issue was from the date of this decision 



LEGISLATOK, LAWYEE, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 41 

. formally presented to the people, and that issue was a reorgan- 
ization of the Supreme Court, and in favor of that proposition 
the entire Democratic party in the state soon found itself ar- 
rayed. 

On the 19th of November, 1839, the Whig candidates for 
presidential electors having already been nominated, the great 
presidential campaign of 1840 was opened at Springfield. 
Cyrus Walker, the Whig candidate, opened the debate, and 
Douglas was summoned to reply. The effect of that reply, 
though perfectly satisfactory to the Democracy, was not so to 
the Whigs. Mr. Lincoln was sent for, and, in the evening, 
made a long speech, to which Douglas again replied. The de- 
bate became an animated one, and was continued till midnight, 
Douglas replying to Lincoln and Walker as they successively 
relieved each other in the discussion. On the next day he 
addressed a Democratic mass convention, and made a very 
elaborate speech on the subject of the United States Bank. 
On the 9th of December the second Democratic state conven- 
tion assembled at Springfield, and among the delegates were 
Judge Breese, who had by that time avowedly united with the 
Democracy, Willis Allen, J. A. M'Clernand, W. A. Richard- 
son, Lyman Trumbull, James Shields, J. D. Caton, now of the 
Supreme Court, S. A. Douglas, Murray M'Connell, and others 
well known in the history of the state. In March, General 
Harrison having been nominated for the presidency by the 
Harrisburg Convention, the political fires were blazing exten- 
sively. A political discussion, continuing a whole week, took 
place at Jacksonville, in which Colonel Hardin and Colonel 
Baker, now of California, took the Whig side, and Mr. Lam- 
borne and Mr. Douglas the Democratic side. On the last day 
of the discussion Mr. Douglas was announced to make the 
closing speech, and a newspaper now before us containing the 
account of the meeting states that the peoj)le came even from 
adjoining counties on horseback and in every description of 
vehicle to hear him. In April he was nominated for the Leg- 
islature in Sangamon County, but declined. 

On the 6th of January the House of Representatives inves- 
tigated certain charges preferred against the Hon. John Pear- 
son, one of the circuit judges. Mr. Douglas, together with 
Messrs. Lamborn, Shields, Turney, and M'Connell, undertook 
the defense, and the result was a complete vindication of the 



42 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

persecuted gentleman. During the summer of 1840 Mr. 
Douglas's services were in almost daily requisition. The hard 
cider and log-cabin campaign was prosecuted with the most 
violent energy. Harrison was a Western man ; Democrats in 
all parts of the Union were abandoning the party, and it was 
confidently proclaimed, and nowhere than in Illinois more 
strongly believed, that " Yan was a used up man." Yet the 
gallant Democracy of Illinois remained true to their flag, 
true to their principles. The contest was a severe one. Illi- 
nois had many able and accomplished Whigs — men powerful in 
debate, and powerful with the people because of their personal 
character and professional abilities. The Democratic candi- 
dates for electors had as much as men could do to follow up 
and meet their opposing candidates, and well and ably did 
they perform their duty. But to Douglas was in a great 
measure confided the task of encountering several able and 
distinguished Whigs, who, though not on the electoral ticket, 
were indefatigable in their exertions on the stump. For seven 
months Mr. Douglas devoted his time to the attempt to pre- 
vent Illinois falling into the hands of the Opposition. He 
traversed all the doubtful counties, strengthening the despond- 
ing, and giving new hope to the fearful. The result is known. 
At the August election Democratic majorities in both branches 
of the Legislature were elected, and the popular vote, though 
close, was Democratic. From August to November the bat- 
tle was waged with renewed vigor. The August elections 
pointed out the localities in which the respective parties were 
weak, and to these points Douglas was dispatched, and not 
until the day of election in November did he rest from his la- 
bors. The state was saved to the Democratic party. In the 
general defeat throughout the Union, Illinois was one of the 
seven states that chose Democratic electors, and, save New 
Hampshire, stood alone in the Northern States in maintaining a 
Democratic supremacy. It is no disparagement to the hund- 
reds of noble spirits who, in behalf of the Democratic party, 
fought the glorious fight of 1840 on the soil of Illinois, to say 
that to Mr. Douglas was due much of the honor and credit of 
the result. His strong constitution and powers of physical en- 
durance rendered him able to perform labors which other men, 
no matter what might be their mental gifts, would have been 
unable to withstand. From one end of the state to the other, 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 43 

the " Little Giant" was recognized and applauded as the most 
conspicuous of the many heroes of that contest. His reputa- 
tion as an orator, and as the forcible exponent of political prin- 
ciples was, by his deeds in this memorable campaign, raised to 
the highest point in the opinion of his party. He had already 
outstripped men who were veterans when he entered the state, 
and seven years from the day he — a sickly, feeble stranger-boy 
— first trod the prairies of Illinois, his name was as familiarly 
known, and his great abilities as fully admitted, as were the 
name and abilities of any other man in the state. 

In the State of Illinois there had been for many years a cus- 
tom of holding, during the sessions of the Legislature, a " third 
house," in which the lobby, composed of all persons attending 
at the seat of government, were admitted as members. Those 
who have witnessed the scenes at the sessions of the "lobby" 
of late years will not discover in the broad jokes and general 
hilarity that importance and great benefit which in olden 
times resulted from " Lord Coke's" assembly. The best minds 
and the best hearts were not always to be found in the legis- 
lative halls. The best lawyers in the state were generally in 
attendance on the Supreme Court during the meeting of the 
Legislature, and these men were often found in the meetings 
of the lobby. Here were discussed all the great measures 
pending before the Legislature, and it was often at these meet- 
ings that members of the Legislature heard arguments which, 
for ability and research, were never equaled within the Senate 
or the House. Douglas was an active member of this house. 
In the discussions of the many questions there presented, he 
was one of the ablest and one of the most conspicuous. Here 
was discussed the bank question, the internal improvements, 
the reorganization of the judiciary, the subject of alien suf- 
frage, and, by no means the least important, the great question 
of repudiation. 

The Legislature met on the 7th of December, 1840, both 
branches being Democratic. A majority of the Senate now 
being in favor of sustaining the governor in the removal of the 
secretary of state, Mr. Field abandoned the struggle and re- 
signed the office. The governor, on the 27th of January, 1841, 
appointed Mr. Douglas secretary of state. 

This session was destined to be one of great importance to 
the state, to the Democratic party, and to Mr. Douglas person- 
allv. 



44 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The Constitution of the State of Illinois, adopted in 1819, 
contained a provision authorizing every free white male "in- 
habitant" above the age of twenty-one years to vote at all elec- 
tions. Under this provision, from the earliest settlement of 
the state, all persons who had become actual inhabitants of the 
state, whether naturalized or not, were permitted to vote. The 
election for President in 1836 had shown that Mr. Van Buren's 
majority barely exceeded three thousand ; and it was supposed 
that if the " alien vote," as it was called, could be thrown out 
at future elections, the state would fall into the hands of the 
Opposition. From that time forth the rejection of the alien 
vote became a part of the policy of the Opposition. It was im- 
portant that the question whether these men were legal voters 
or not should be decided by some judicial authority. The Op- 
position, therefore, selected the Jo Daviess circuit in which to 
strike down a large body of the Democratic voters. At the 
congressional election in 1838, one of these "inhabitants" of 
the State of Illinois, being unnaturalized, voted for Mr. Doug- 
las. His vote had been received by the judges of election 
with a full knowledge on their part that he had never been nat- 
uralized. The Opposition, through a Mr. Houghton, instituted 
a qui tarn prosecution against Mr. Spraggins, one of the judges. 
The case was tried ; and the Circuit Court (Judge Stone) be- 
fore whom the case was tried denied the authority of the state 
to confer the privilege of voting upon an unnaturalized alien, 
and rendered judgment against the defendant. This decision, 
in its practical effect, cut off at least one half the Democratic 
vote in the great northern district of the state. It was fatal to 
the Democratic party, which, bereft of that vote, would be in 
a minority in the popular vote of the state, and would be in a 
minority in a large number of senatorial and representative 
districts then represented by Democrats. If allowed to stand 
as law, that decision would have the effect of delivering the 
state and all the branches of the government to the Whig jDar- 
ty. Mr. Douglas saw the importance of the decision not only 
to the thousands who were disfranchised by it, but also the im- 
portance in a political or party view. Though a stranger to 
the party convicted as well as to the voter, as soon as he heard 
of the decision he voluntarily interfered, and had the cause 
taken to the Supreme Court for review. At this time he stood 
almost alone at the bar in the opinion he expressed, that the 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 45 

regulation of the matter of suffrage, within their respective 
limits, was one of those rights which the states had never sur- 
rendered to the federal government ; that each state had, with- 
in its own limits, the full and exclusive right and authority to 
admit to the privilege of voting any and every class of persons 
she might think proper. The right to vote was not necessari- 
ly or exclusively pertaining to citizenship. Five sixths of the 
free white citizens of the United States were denied by law 
the privilege of voting. The Constitution of the United States 
expressly conceded, in the second section of the first arti- 
cle, to the states the exclusive control of the privilege of vot- 
ing. At that time, as has been stated, Mr. Douglas almost 
stood alone at the bar in maintaining this view of the case. 
Men were led off from the true view of the case by the very 
plausible theory that, if aliens were allowed to vote, the elec- 
tion of a President might possibly be decided by their vote ; 
and that the Constitution, in providing for a naturalization law, 
intended that aliens who desired to participate in the political 
privileges of the country should first become citizens. Those 
who took this view of the case forgot that, however strong 
their argument might be against the policy of a state admit- 
ting aliens to the privilege of voting, yet that was not the 
question at issue. The point depending was not whether the 
state ought to admit aliens to vote, but whether the state, hav- 
ing already conferred the privilege, had the power and author- 
ity to do so or not. The case was the first involving the point 
ever tried in the United States. Notwithstanding that it was 
generally understood that a majority of the Supreme Court 
were against him, Mr. Douglas fearlessly undertook the case, 
which has since become so well known. Its title was, Thomas 
Spraggins, appellant, vs. Horace H. Houghton, appellee. The 
argument was long and elaborate, and took place at the winter 
term of 1839-40. Upon its decision hung the future success 
or defeat of the Democratic party. The counsel were, Doug- 
las and Murray M'Connell for the appellant ; and Cyrus Walk- 
er, Schuyler Strong, and Justin Butterfield for the appellee. 

The court took the case under advisement until the next 
term. In June, 1840, the court reassembled, and commenced 
its business by reading opinions and entering judgments upon 
those cases heard but not decided at the previous term. The 
state, at the time, was all excitement ; cider barrels, log cabins, 



46 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and coon-skin emblems were in the height of popular estima- 
tion. The Democracy of Illinois were alarmed ; they required 
every vote that could be procured to save the state. The 
" alien vote," numbering several thousands in the state, was 
indispensable. In a conversation with Judge Smith, Mr. Doug- 
las learned that Judges Lockwood, Brown, and Wilson had 
agreed upon a decision in the case of Spraggins vs. Houghton, 
and that, at the opening of the term, they would announce it, 
and that the decision would sustain the judgment of the court 
below. This intelligence was important. The moment such 
a decision as that should be rendered by the Supreme Court, 
the Democracy would be shorn of their strength, and the state 
would be hopelessly Whig. It would be useless to carry on 
the campaign, for the loss of the " alien" vote would place the 
Democracy in a hopeless minority. How to prevent the calam- 
ity was a serious question. Every possible mode was consid- 
ered, and rejected as vain. At last he read the record sent up 
by the clerk of the Circuit Court. It was defective ; it con- 
tained errors ; it lacked some things which had been carelessly 
omitted. When the court opened, and the judges had unrolled 
their opinions, preparatory to pronouncing judgment in the case 
of Spraggins vs. Houghton — a judgment so fatal, if rendered 
—Mr. Douglas rose and stated that the case was one of the very 
highest importance. It was important to the persons who 
were involved in it, but it was of still greater importance to 
thousands of others in their state. It was a case involving the 
political status of a very large portion of the people of Illi- 
nois. It was therefore necessary that the judgment of the 
court should be final, whichever way it might be. Upon an 
examination of the record in the case since the argument, he 
had discovered that it was fatally defective, so much so that 
no judgment could be rendered on it. He was unwilling to 
accept a judgment in a matter of such vast importance to his 
clients and to the public, when that judgment, in consequence 
of defects in the record, would be of no force or effect. He 
therefore moved that the cause be dismissed. This motion 
was resisted, and was set down for argument. It was subse- 
quently argued, and, without any decision on the motion, the 
whole case was continued over until the next winter term. 

Thus was prevented a decision which at this day would have 
but few defenders, and thus was saved, in a day of extremity, 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 47 

a vote which, at the election in November following, enabled 
the Democratic party to retain their ascendency in the State 
of Illinois. 

The legal principle asserted by Mr. Douglas for the first 
time in this celebrated case, and then supposed to be so un- 
sound, was afterward elaborately discussed by him in Con- 
gress, and is now the well-established doctrine of all parties in 
all the states. 

In the debates in the lobby, in which Hon. J. A. M'Cler- 
nand, now of the House of Representatives, Hon. Murray 
M'Connell, and Hon. J. A. M'Dougall, now of California, took 
prominent parts, upon the Judiciary question, at that session 
of 1840-41, the action of the Supreme Court in this case was 
freely commented upon. It is true that early that winter the 
court delivered its opinion reversing the decision of the court 
below, yet its intended decision otherwise when it was re- 
quired as a party measure was employed with great effect. 
It gave strength to the advocates of a reorganization of the 
judiciary. The political character of the court, and the par- 
tisan nature of their official acts as judges and as members of 
the Council of Revision, were held up in the strongest light, not 
only in the Legislature, but in the more animated debates in 
the lobby. The proposed plan of reorganizing the courts was 
as follows : 

To abolish the existing circuit courts, and to increase the 
number of judges of the Supreme Court to nine, and requir- 
ing those judges to do circuit duty, the whole court sitting in 
banc at stated periods to hear appeals, etc. 

This plan was perfectly in accordance with the Constitution 
of the state. The circuit courts had been created by the Leg- 
islature, and were wholly within its control. The plan pro- 
posed in no way interfered with the constitutional rights of 
the judges of the Supreme Court ; they continued undisturbed 
in the possession of their offices and their salaries. Accord- 
ingly, Mr. Snyder, in January, introduced a bill into the Senate 
to reorganize the judiciary of the state upon the plan stated 
above. The debate in the Legislature and in the lobby w r as 
renewed with great warmth, and finally the bill passed both 
houses. On the 7th of February the bill was returned by the 
Council of Revision (consisting of the judges of the Supreme 
Court and the governor) with their objections. The objections 



48 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

were on the ground of expediency. The governor dissented 
from his associates in council, but was overruled by the ma- 
jority. The bill was, however, considered, and passed both 
houses by the requisite majority. 

Under this act the state was divided into nine circuits, that 
being the number of judges of the Supreme Court ; and on the 
15th of February, 1841, the Legislature met in joint conven- 
tion to elect the five additional judges provided for by the act. 
In that convention, Sidney Breese, Stephen A. Douglas, Thomas 
Ford, S. H. Treat, and Walter B. Scates were chosen. In the 
allotment of circuits, the fifth, being the Quincy District, was 
assigned to Judge Douglas. On the 4th of March, 1834, a 
poor stranger, without friends, books, or money, he obtained, 
what was supposed to be a favor, from the four judges of the 
Supreme Court, a license to practice law ; and in less than seven 
years from the date of that license, by the force of his own un- 
aided abilities, he had so won the confidence and respect of the 
people that he was chosen a member of that same court. 

It was at this session of the Legislature that the Hon. Lyman 
Trumbull, now of the United States Senate, introduced his 
resolution advising the practical repudiation of a portion of 
the state debt by refusing to pay interest on certain bonds of 
the state for which the state had received no equivalent. This 
measure was advocated by Trumbull in the House, and was 
discussed in the lobby, and in a powerful speech in the latter 
Mr. Douglas administered a crushing rebuke to the arrant 
demagoguism evinced by the mover of the resolution. The 
proposition was made so odious that it was soon abandoned 
as an unsafe hobby even for a demagogue. The state, through 
inability, for a number of years afterward omitted the payment 
of interest, but never at any time repudiated the debt ; and 
subsequently, when the state was in a condition to pay, the ac- 
crued interest was funded, and stock for its amount was issued 
bearing interest. All honor to the gallant men who met the 
insidious and perfidious proposition to repudiate at the thresh- 
old, and strangled it even in the hands of its author. 

The circuit to which Judge Douglas was assigned was the 
most perplexing and annoying. It included the Mormon settle- 
ments, and there was a constant conflict between the " Saints" 
and the " Gentiles." Some of the most exciting scenes of his 
life were spent in the judicial and other proceedings growing 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYER, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 49 

out of the turbulence of the people connected with the Mor- 
mon leaders. Joe Smith and his people were accused of all 
the crimes in the calendar, particularly with all the horse-steal- 
ing committed in that section. Whether true or false, it was 
almost impossible to prove by sufficient legal testimony the 
guilt of the parties accused. The consequence was that an em- 
bittered state of feeling gradually grew up between the Mor- 
mons and the rest of the people, and these exasperated feel- 
ings often led to deeds of violence. Joe Smith was the head 
of the Mormon Church and people. The people held the court 
responsible if the prisoners escaped conviction, and the Mor- 
mons denounced the court for inclining always to the oppress- 
ors of that chosen race. 

One trying scene in his judicial career will suffice to illus- 
trate the difficulties attending the administration of justice in 
cases where the Mormons were parties, and at the same time 
serve as an illustration of the boldness and Jackson-like de- 
termination of Stephen A. Douglas. Joe Smith had been in- 
dicted for some offense, and was put upon his trial before 
Judge Douglas. While the case was proceeding, the people, 
who had collected from all parts of the country to see the 
prisoner, and, as they hoped, to rejoice at his conviction, be- 
came excited by the thousand stories told of Mormon out- 
rages. Smith was represented to be, as he was in fact, the 
moving spirit of the sect, and it was supposed that if he were 
put out of the way, the entire settlements, being deprived of 
their leader, would break up and leave the country. More- 
over, Smith was by the populace held individually responsible 
for all the crimes charged against his people. On this occa- 
sion the multitude had become greatly excited, and it being 
whispered that the evidence would hardly justify a conviction, 
it was proposed by some one to enter the court-house, seize 
the prisoner, and hang him. A gallows was at once con- 
structed and erected in the court-house yard, and a body of 
four hundred men entered the court-house for the purpose of 
taking Smith and hanging him. As the mob boisterously and 
tumultuously entered and crowded toward the bench, near 
which Smith sat, the judge directed the sheriff to clear the 
court-room, as these men interrupted the proceedings. The 
sheriff, a small, weak man, requested " the gentlemen" to keep 
order and to retire, and attempted to enforce the request, but 

C 



50 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

very soon informed the court that he could not do it. Gain- 
ing confidence by the confession of powerlessness on the part 
of the sheriff, and maddened still more by the sight of the pris- 
oner, several of them climbed over the bar, and rushed toward 
Smith. The judge at once rose in his place, and, addressing 
by name a large-built man, who stood six and a half feet high, 
a Kentuekian by birth, and of great muscular strength, said, 
" I appoint you sheriff of this court. Select your own depu- 
ties, and as many of them as you require. Clear this court- 
house ; the law demands it, the country demands it, and I, as 
judge of this court, command you to do your duty as a citi- 
zen bound to preserve the peace and enforce the laws." The 
newly and rather suddenly appointed sheriff " obeyed orders." 
He ordered the crowd to leave, the judge encouraging him all 
the while. The first, second, and the third who refused to 
quit the court-room were instantly knocked down by the pow- 
erful arm of the Kentuekian. Others were thrown out of the 
windows by him and his deputies, and the great crowd, baffled 
and discouraged by the repulse of their leaders, crowded out 
of the doors. In less than twenty minutes from the first en- 
trance of the mob the court-room was cleared. A murder had 
been prevented. The administration of law had been protect- 
ed from a violent invasion. The prisoner's right to a fair trial 
by the courts of his country had been vindicated, and all this 
by the prompt action of the judge. A feature in the case that 
renders it more striking is, that the judge had no power to 
appoint a sheriff, the duly appointed sheriff of the county being 
present ; and in his extempore appointment he had exceeded 
his authority, or, more properly sjDeaking, had assumed an au- 
thority that did not belong to him. This he well knew. But 
the emergency was a great one. A moment's delay would 
have been fatal ; the least sign of hesitation would have sealed 
the prisoner's fate ; in five minutes he would have been hang- 
ed, if, indeed, he was not killed before taken out of the build- 
ing. It was no time for debate as to the limits of his power. 
Like Jackson at New Orleans, he assumed the responsibility 
of doing what necessity required. He did the only thing that 
was possible to prevent a murder in the precincts of the court, 
and a gross violation of the laws. 

The gratitude of Smith was unbounded. On many previous 
occasions he and his followers had denounced Judge Douglas 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYEK, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 51 

for his frequent decisions adverse to their interests in cases 
where they were parties, but from that time out he always 
treated Douglas with respect. He had learned that the best 
judge was not the man who decided in his favor, but the man 
who decided as justice demanded, and who, to protect the pris- 
oner and preserve the laws from violence, had driven back a 
murderous mob ! The respect of the Mormons, won by this 
event, was of infinite service to himself and others on a very 
memorable occasion. We give the story as we find it, having 
no doubt of its general accuracy : 

"In the year 1846, the excitement against the Mormons at 
Nauvoo reached its height. The people of the surrounding 
country determined to drive them away. The Saints determ- 
ined to defend themselves. A civil war seemed imminent. 
Governor Ford dispatched a regiment to put down both bel- 
ligerents. This regiment, consisting of 450 men, was under 
the command of Colonel John J. Hardin, the old political op- 
ponent, but warm personal friend of Mr. Douglas, who held the 
post of major. 

" As the little body of troops approached Nauvoo, they saw 
the Mormons, 4000 strong, drawn up to oppose their advance. 
Every man of them was known to be armed with a * seven- 
shooter' and a brace of Colt's ' revolvers' — twenty-one shots 
to a man besides a bowie-knife. 

" Hardin halted his troops just out of rifle range, and address- 
ed them : 

" ' There are the Mormons, ten to one against us. I intend 
to attack them. If there is a coward here who wishes to go 
home, he may do so now. Let any man who wishes to go 
step to the front.' 

" Not a man came forward. 

" ' There were, I daresay,' says Mr. Douglas, 'just 451 of us, 
including our colonel, who would have been glad to have re- 
tired ; but not one of us had the courage to own that he was 
a coward.' 

" ' Major Douglas,' said the colonel, * will take 100 men, will 
proceed to Nauvoo, arrest the twelve apostles, and bring them 
here !' 

" ' Colonel Hardin,' asked the major, quietly, so that no one 
else heard, « is this a peremptory order ?' 

"'It is.' 



52 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

" 'Then I shall make an attempt to execute it. But I give 
you warning that not a man of us will ever return.' 

" ' The apostles must be taken, Major Douglas,' replied the 
colonel. 

" ' Very well, colonel. If you will send me alone you will be 
much more likely to get them.' 

" ' But you will lose your life.' 

" ' I will take the responsibility. If you send me alone, I 
will pledge myself to reach the city. As to bringing in the 
twelve, or getting back myself, that is quite another question. 
I will try.' 

" ' Major Douglas,' said the colonel, after reflecting a few 
moments, ' will proceed to Nauvoo, taking such escort as he 
sees fit.' 

" The order was hardly given when the little major — for he 
was not then a ' Little Giant' — dashed off at full speed and 
alone. As he approached the Mormon legions, General Wells 
came forward to meet him, and, after a brief conversation, es- 
corted him through the hollow square of troops into the city. 
He was not long in finding Brigham and the twelve. All of 
them were old acquaintances of his. Most of them had, in 
fact, been before him for trial, as judge, upon some charge or 
other. 

" The judge is famous for his taking manners, and in a very 
brief time he succeeded in inducing Brigham and his associates 
to accompany him. They all packed themselves into the 
' apostolic coach,' drawn by eight horses, and presented them- 
selves in the camp. 

" The fighting was postponed, and negotiations for the re- 
moval of the Mormons were entered upon, Judge Douglas 
being chief negotiator on one side. Brigham himself said but 
little ; and, at length, said he would go out for a while, direct- 
ing his associates to settle the terms. These were soon in- 
formally agreed to by the twelve, and they were committed 
to paper. 

" Brigham returned, and asked how matters had succeeded. 
He was told that every thing had been settled. 

" 'Let me look at the terms,' said Brigham, quietly. 

" He read them over hastily. 

" ' I'll never agree to them — never !' he exclaimed. 

" The vote was formally put, and the whole twelve, without 



LEGISLATOR, LAWYEE, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 53 

a dissenting voice, declared against them, though they had as 
unanimously accepted them not five minutes before. 

"The negotiations were then renewed between Brigham and 
Douglas. New terms were settled ; and, when the vote was 
taken, the twelve agreed to them at once. The treaty was 
duly signed, and the Mormons prepared to leave the state." 

The election to a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court 
was as unexpected as it was undesired by Mr. Douglas. He 
had already attained a heavy practice, particularly in the larger 
cases. He was located at the seat of government, and was 
holding an office of honor, whose duties were comparatively 
light, and which afforded him the use of the public library. 
As secretary of state he could practice law; as judge he would 
be compelled to perform a great amount of labor at a very 
disproportioned salary. But friends asked the sacrifice, press- 
ed it, urged it, and he consented. He did not take his seat 
until the last day of that term ; and, as soon as the court ad- 
journed, removed his residence to the beautiful city of Quincy, 
on the Mississippi, and commenced his circuit duties. He had, 
independent of his Mormon constituents, a large district ; his 
duties on the circuit, and at the semi-annual meeting of the 
court at Springfield, occupied nearly all his time. He was 
holding court at least ten months in each year, and the jour- 
neyings from county to county were by no means trips of 
pleasure. Some of the most important cases were brought 
before him. We have heard it stated that there was but one 
case of the many decided by him that was ever reversed, and 
that was one involving some question of practice. He was, as 
judge and as a member of the Council of Revision, determined- 
ly hostile to all the attempts by legislation to prevent the col- 
lection of honest debts. In those days, when money was scarce 
and credit destroyed, there were demagogues who, not bold 
enough to imitate Trumbull in his proposition for direct repu- 
diation, still sought, like him, popularity with the rabble by 
propositions for stay laws and assessment laws. One of these 
laws provided that, before a man's property should be sold for 
debt, it should be appraised by a certain number of his neigh- 
bors, and then it could not be sold on execution for less than 
that appraised value. 

Against these and all similar acts of legislation Judge Doug- 
las remonstrated in the Council of Revision ; and whenever they 
came before him judicially, whenever he could do so conscien- 



54 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tiously, he decided them to be unconstitutional, as violative 
of that great principle that the Legislature should not pass laws 
impairing the validity of contracts by ex post facto regulations. 
These and like decisions, often pronounced with striking em- 
phasis and warmth, lost him the friendship and support of the 
few, but endeared him to the many, and eventually gained for 
him that warm confidence of the public which is sure to follow 
an upright adherence to the right. 

The extent of his popularity at this time may be judged by 
an event that took place at the session of the Legislature in 
December, 1842. He had then been a judge nearly two years, 
and had been absent from the seat of government, and from 
the political caucusing and managing that was ever going on 
at that place. When the Legislature met a United States sen- 
ator was to be chosen. He was then twenty-nine years of age 
— Avould not be thirty until April, 1843. The senator to be 
chosen was to be elected for six years from March 3, 1843. 
There was a demand from various parts that he should be se- 
lected. He was a friend and a supporter of the Hon. R. M. 
Young, then holding the place. There were several compet- 
itors for the place, and their friends urged Douglas's non-eli- 
gibility. The Constitution required senators to be thirty years 
of age ; he would not be thirty at the time of his election. His 
admirers, in his absence, urged in reply that he need not, even 
if there was a called session, take his seat until after he had 
reached the required age. But such questions were not, in 
those days, as familiarly understood as at the present, and his 
nonage was used with great effect against him. 

The Democratic members of the Legislature met in caucus 
on the evening of Friday, December 16, 1842, to nominate a 
candidate for United States senator. The excitement was high, 
and was shared in by the hundreds of leading men of the state 
not members of the Legislature, but present at Springfield. 
There were nineteen ballots before a nomination was made ; 
and as the result of each was announced to the multitude out- 
side, the cheering for the candidates by their respective friends 
added greatly to the excitement. The following was the re- 
sult of the first and last ballots : 

1st. 19th. 

K.M.Young 38 1 

Sidney Breese 28 56 

S. A. Douglas 29 51 

J. A. M'Clernand 18 3 



LEGISLATOE, LAWTEE, POLITICIAN, AND JUDGE. 55 

The Hon. Sidney Breese, having on the nineteenth ballot ob- 
tained a majority of one, was declared nominated, and next 
day was elected by the Legislature. 

In December, 1841, a Democratic state convention had as- 
sembled to nominate candidates for state officers, and had nom- 
inated the Hon. A. W. Snyder for governor, and John Moore 
for lieutenant governor. During the canvass Mr. Snydee died, 
and the Hou.Thojias Foed, one of the judges of the Supreme 
Court, was placed on the ticket in his place. Messrs. Ford 
and Moore were elected, and entered upon the duties of their 
offices in January, 1843. 

In the spring of 1843 Judge Douglas's health became very 
much impaired, and he contemplated resigning his office and 
spending the summer in the Indian country — that country 
with which, under the title of Kansas and Nebraska, his name 
has subsequently become so familiar ! But the exigencies of 
the Democratic party required his services again. The state 
had been redistricted under the new census, the number of 
representatives in Congress to which Illinois was entitled had 
been increased to seven, and the district in which he resided 
was one in which the Democrats had but little hope of success. 
Several counties had nominated him for the office, but, in con- 
sequence of his ill health, and the seeming impossibility on his 
part to canvass the district, he had declined the use of his 
name. But on the meeting of the counties he was nominated ; 
the persons voted for, besides Mr. Douglas, on the first ballot, 
were William A. Richardson, A. W. Cavarly, Ex-governor Car- 
lin, and Ex-senator Young. The convention met at Suggs- 
ville, in Pike County. Judge Douglas was nominated on the 
second ballot by a most decided vote. A committee was ap- 
pointed to wait upon him, and urge his acceptance, as the only 
hope of carrying the district. 

He was, when informed of his nomination, holding court at 
Knoxville ; he was advised, considering the doubtful chances 
of the election, to retain his judicial office, and resign it only 
in the event of his election. He rejected this advice, and, 
having accepted the nomination, as soon as the term was closed 
he resigned his office as judge. 

The Hon. O. H. Beowning, of Quincy, one of the ablest law- 
yers in that district, was the opposing candidate. Mr. Brown- 
ing was attending court at the time, and, as soon as the judge 



56 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

resigned, they made out a list of appointments for joint dis- 
cussion, commencing at Charleston (now Brimfield),in Peoria 
County, on June 23d. The district was a large one. It in- 
cluded the following named counties, with those which have 
since been formed out of them, viz., Jersey, Green, Macoupin, 
Calhoun, Pike, Brown, Schuyler, Adams, Marquette, Fulton, 
and Peoria. The two candidates from that day until the day 
before election traversed the district together. The election 
took place in August, and the contest was an excited and ani- 
mated one, and the result was that Mr. Douglas was elected 
by a majority of 445 ! So great had been the exertions and 
labors of the candidates, that on election-day both were pros- 
trated with illness from which neither recovered for nearly 
two months. 

As soon as his health permitted, some time in November of 
the same year, he left Quincy on his way to Washington. Ten 
years had just elapsed since he had entered the state a poor, 
friendless, and unknown youth. During those ten years what 
an eventful life had been his. In November, 1833, he had gone 
from one town to another on foot, seeking employment that 
would yield him enough to pay for his board and washing. 
In November, 1843, he bore upon his person his commission 
as a member of Congress ! In the winter of '33-4 he had 
accepted, as a gracious deed of kindness, the place of teacher 
to a school of forty pupils, at three dollars per quarter each ; 
now he was the duly commissioned and honored representa- 
tive in the councils of his country of a hundred thousand of 
his fellow-citizens. In 1834 he had obtained from the Supreme 
Court, with their sneer upon his pretensions, a license to prac- 
tice law ; within a few months he had resigned his seat as a 
colleague of those same judges to accept of a higher and more 
important trust confided to him by the people of Illinois. 
During those ten years, how strong must have been the will, 
and persevering the energy, that enabled him successfully to 
encounter all the opposition and overcome all the obstacles 
which met him at every path. From the day of his memora- 
ble speech in the court-house at Jacksonville he had been a 
marked man by friend and foe ; that speech drew upon him 
the attention of all envious rivals in his own party, and aspiring 
men in the Opposition. It was the stepping-stone to an un- 
bounded and unequaled popularity in his own party, and drew 



LEGISLATOE, LAWYER, POLITICIAN", AND JUDGE. 57 

upon him the first shaft of the Opposition. When Mr. Lam- 
born rose to address that meeting that day, he had not the 
slightest doubt of "killing Douglas" before he concluded. 
But Douglas was not " killed ;" the very means employed to 
destroy him he used with unequaled power in strengthening 
and elevating himself. The work attempted by Lamborn on 
that occasion was taken up by many during those first ten 
years of Douglas in Illinois, but the men who engaged in it 
failed, as have all other men who attempted the task. Where 
are the men who sought his political destruction in those 
years ? They have been forgotten, or, being remembered, are 
remembered only because they encountered Douglas and were 
vanquished by him. It is unnecessary to mention names ; it 
is unnecessary to ask what became of the men who, during 
those years, sought to destroy him in the estimation of the 
people ; the only answer that need be given to such a ques- 
tion is to point to the tombstones that stand conspicuously 
upon every political battle-field of those ten eventful years. 

Mr. Douglas, after his ten years' absence, visited, on his way 
to Congress, his friends at Cleveland and his relatives at Can- 
andaigua. He had redeemed his promise — that he would carve 
out his own successful career. Unaided and alone he had gone 
forth ; he now returned as the chosen representative of the 
generous people with whom he had taken up his residence. 
Since he had last seen his relatives, he had, from the condition 
of a penniless, homeless youth, been admitted to the bar, chosen 
state's attorney, register of the land office, secretary of state, 
judge of the Supreme Court, and now a member of Congress. 
Had he been idle ? had he wasted his talents ? had he misap- 
plied his time ? Was there one of the hundreds who, sur- 
rounded with all the aids of wealth and family influence, had 
started in life with him, could show a more brilliant or success- 
ful career, or more honorable proofs often years' earnest labor? 

Since December, 1843, Mr. Douglas has been a representa- 
tive of Illinois in one or other house of Congress. He took 
his seat in December, 1843, and again in December, 1845, as 
a member of the House. In August, 1846, he was again elect- 
ed to the House ; but at the session of the Legislature com- 
mencing December, 1846, he was elected to the LTnited States 
Senate. In January, 1853, he was again elected to the Senate, 

C2 



58 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and in January, 1859 — after the memorable contest of 1858 — 
he was a third time elected for a term of six years. After the 
first convention which nominated him for Congress, there was 
no opposition to his nomination, the party taking him up as 
their candidate by universal consent. So with his election to 
the United States Senate. After the caucus had nominated 
him in 1847, he was elected as a matter of course; and in 
1853 and in 1859 no opposition in his own party was ever 
urged against his re-election. 

Perhaps no man, not excepting even the great Clay, "Web- 
ster, and Benton, has taken a more active part in the debates 
of Congress during the time that he has been a member, than 
Mr. Douglas. No branch of the public business has occupied 
his whole time. He has been an untiring business man upon 
all the great subjects that have been before Congress since 
1843. Upon all these questions he has entered largely into 
the debates, and the attentive reader of the discussions in Con- 
gress will find that Mr. Douglas's speeches are all devoted to 
the accomplishment of practical ends, to be attained by follow- 
ing fixed principles ; and that in no instance has he departed 
from this policy, even when by so doing he could avoid per- 
sonal hostility or obtain personal favor. His intrepidity as a 
statesman has marked every step of his public career, and the 
stronger and more violent the storm directed against him, the 
stronger and more unyielding has been his determination to 
work out the great end he had in view. 

Another distinguishing mark of Mr. Douglas's career has 
been that he has never failed in any proposition which he 
has undertaken seriously to have accomplished. He has intro- 
duced many measures that he has never pushed to a success- 
ful issue ; but when the right time arrives for any measure 
that he deems appropriate and necessary, he never has failed 
to give to it all his energies, and in such case has never failed 
in seeing it successful over all opposition. 

In reviewing the public history of a man who, like Mr. 
Douglas, has taken such an important part in the legislation 
of nearly twenty years, covering a period of agitation and ex- 
citement never exceeded in the previous history of the coun- 
try, it is necessary, in a work like this, to condense narratives, 
when the whole story should be told, and to give the substance 
only of speeches, when the entire speeches ought to be read. 



ME. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 59 

Much that is valuable in the history of the country, and much 
that would be useful in forming a true and just estimate of 
Mr. Douglas's great abilities as a jurist, a statesman, and an 
orator, is reluctantly yet necessarily omitted in this volume. 
In preparing the sketch of his services in Congress, it has been 
found more convenient, and possibly more advantageous to 
the reader, to arrange them under subjects, without any strict 
reference to chronological order ; and the reader must remem- 
ber that the subjects treated of in the following pages are not 
all, but only a few of the leading measures in which he has 
taken an active part. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ME. DOUGLAS AND GENEEAL JACKSON. 

It has already been stated that Mr. Douglas's first speech of 
a political character in Illinois, and his first public political tri- 
umph, was at a public meeting at Jacksonville, in the spring 
of 1834, where he encountered the ablest of General Jackson's 
opponents, and in a county where the influence of the bank 
had paralyzed the Democracy, had silenced the old hero's cham- 
pions, and was carrying unopposed all political power to the 
side of the monopoly. Young, inexperienced, unknown to the 
people, he vindicated the policy of the old veteran, and turned 
the tide of popular opinion in his favor. That was not the 
only speech, nor the only time that he encountered the gallant 
and eloquent orators of the Whig party in the defense of Gen- 
eral Jackson. On the circuit while prosecuting attorney, on 
the stump as candidate for the Legislature, in the Legislature 
as a member, before the people as a candidate for Congress, on 
the stump as a Democratic orator, every where, on all occa- 
sions, from 1834 until the expiration of General Jackson's term 
of office in 1837, Mr. Douglas was selected by his political 
friends, and recognized by his opponents, as the especial cham- 
pion of the administration, and of the personal and political 
character of General Andrew Jackson. It has also been stated 
that in boyhood, when serving as an apprentice in Vermont, 
he was found in the workshop, and in all congregations of 
youths of his own age, and even of a larger growth, the de- 



60 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

fender of Jackson. His exploits in tearing clown the infamous 
coffin hand-bills are still remembered. Afterward, while at 
Canandaigua, he was noted for the fervor with which he es- 
poused the cause of Jackson, and during the canvass of 1832 
for the zeal displayed in behalf of Jackson and Marcy. 

Nor was his advocacy of the principles of General Jackson 
terminated by the retirement of the old hero from the presi- 
dency. In Mr. Van Buren's administration, and in the trials 
and vicissitudes that attended its earlier days in financial mat- 
ters, the old hero's cause was tried over and over again. Dur- 
ing 183V, 8, and 9, Mr. Douglas was indefatigable on the stump 
and in convention in the defense of the financial policy adopt- 
ed by the party. In these matters he occupied the very first 
position as an orator before the people of his state. 

In December, 1843, he took his seat in Congress. For sev- 
eral years preceding there had been a struggle over a bill pro- 
posing to refund to General Jackson the fine of $1000 imposed 
upon him by Judge Hall, at New Orleans, during the defense 
of that city. Some of the best minds in Congress had consid- 
ered the question, and it had been, as was thought, thoroughly 
discussed. The bill had never become a law. Early in the 
session of 1843-4 a bill was introduced, and the subject was 
again debated. General Jackson was extolled on all sides ; 
most of the friends of the bill supported it as a measure of 
gratitude — a boon due by a grateful country to her patriotic 
and successful defender. On this ground it was mainly sup- 
ported by its friends. On the 7th of January, 1 844, Mr. Doug- 
las obtained the floor. He was then unknown to Congress. 
His was a new face, and his was a strange voice in those halls. 
He did not follow the beaten path in his advocacy of the bill. 
He at once took high and strong ground in defense of General 
Jackson's conduct. He denied the legality of Judge Hall's 
judgment. This position was a bold one ; the speaker attract- 
ed attention ; and, as he warmed with his subject, he soon ob- 
tained the ear of the House. His speech was a success. It 
established his character as a lawyer and as a debater. From 
that time to the present day he has never been compelled to 
address empty benches, or an impatient, inattentive audience. 
As a monument to indicate his starting-point in the parlia- 
mentary history of the country, the speech is here inserted in 
full. 



MR. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 61 

Mr. Douglas said : 

When this bill was introduced by the learned gentleman from Pennsylva- 
nia (Mr. C. J. Ingersoll), I entertained the hope that it would be permitted 
to pass without discussion and without opposition. But the character of the 
amendment submitted by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Stephens), and 
the debate which has taken place upon it and the original bill, have been of 
such a nature as to justify and require the friends of the bill to go into a dis- 
cussion of the whole subject. For one, I am not disposed to shrink from the 
investigation of any question connected with this subject, nor am I prepared 
to acquiesce silently in the correctness of the imputations cast upon the friends 
of this measure by gentlemen in the Opposition. They have been pleased to 
stigmatize this act of justice to- the distinguished patriot and hero as a hum- 
bug — a party trick — a political movement, intended to operate upon the next 
Presidential election. These imputations are as unfounded as they are un- 
courteous, and I hurl them back, in the spirit which they deserve, upon any 
man who is capable of harboring, much less expressing, such a sentiment. It 
ill becomes gentlemen to profess to be the real friends of General Jackson, 
and the exclusive guardians of his fame, and to characterize our effort as sin- 
ister and insincere, while in the same breath they charge him with violating 
the Constitution and laws, and trampling with ruthless violence upon the ju- 
diciary of the country. They seem to act upon the principle that the most 
successful mode of blackening the character of a great and good man is to 
profess to be his friends while making unfounded admissions against him, 
which, if true, would blast his reputution forever. If these are to be taken 
as the kind offering of friendship, well may the old hero pray God to deliver 
him from the hands of his friends, and leave him to take care of his enemies. 
I insist that this bill has been brought forward and supported in good faith 
as an act of justice — strict, rigid, impartial justice to the American people, as 
well as their bravest defender. The country has an interest in the character 
of her public men — their unsullied fame gives brilliancy to her glory. The 
history of General Jackson is so inseparably connected with the history of this 
country, that the slightest blot upon the one would fix an indelible stain upon 
the other. Hence the duty, the high and patriotic duty, of the representa- 
tives of the people to efface every unjust stigma from the spotless character 
of that truly great man, and transmit his name to posterity adorned with all 
the charms which the light of truth will impart to it. The charge of exert- 
ing arbitrary power and lawless violence over courts, and Legislatures, and 
civil institutions, in derogation of the Constitution and laws, and without the 
sanction of rightful authority, have been so often made and reiterated for po- 
litical effect, that doubtless many candid men have been disposed to repose 
faith in their correctness, without taking the pains to examine carefully the 
grounds upon which they rest. 

A question involving the right of the country to use the means necessary 
to its defense from foreign invasion in times of imminent and impending dan- 
ger is too vitally important to be yielded without an inquiry into the nature 
and sotirce of the fatal restriction which is to deprive a nation of the power 
of self-preservation. The proposition contended for by the Opposition is, that 
the general in command, to whose protection are committed the country, and 
the lives, property, and liberties of the citizens within his district, may not 
declare martial law when it is ascertained that its exercise, and it alone, can 
save all from total destruction. It is gi-avely contended that in such an aw- 
ful conjuncture of circumstances, the general must abandon all to the mercy 
of the enemy, because he is not authorized to elevate the military above the 
civil authorities, and that, too, when it is certain that nothing but the power 
of the military law can save the civil laws and the Constitution of the coun- 
try from complete annihilation. If these are not the positions assumed by 



62 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

• 

gentlemen in so many words, they are unquestionably the conclusion to which 
their positions necessarily and inevitably conduct us ; for no man pretends to 
venture the assertion that the city of New Orleans could, by any human 
agency or effort, have been saved in any other manner than the declaration 
and enforcement of martial law. For one, I maintain that, in the exercise 
of this power, General Jackson did not violate the Constitution, nor assume 
to himself any authority which was not fully authorized and legalized by his 
position, his duty, and the unavoidable necessity of the case. Sir, I admit 
that the declaration of martial law is the exercise of a summary, arbitrary, 
and despotic power, like that of a judge punishing for contempt, without evi- 
dence, or trial, or jury, and without any other law than his own will, or any 
limit to the punishment but his own discretion. The power in the two cases 
is analogous ; it rests upon the same principle, and is deiivable from the same 
source — extreme necessity. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Barnard), 
in his legal argument to establish the right of Judge Hall to fine General 
Jackson one thousand dollars for contempt of court, without the forms of 
trial, has informed us that this power is not conferred by the common law, 
nor by statute, nor by any express provision, but is inherent in every judicial 
tribunal and every legislative body. He has cited the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in support of this doctrine, and I do not deem it 
necessary, for the purposes of this argument, to question its soundness. The 
ground upon which it is held that this extraordinary power is original, and 
inherent in all courts and deliberative bodies, is, that it is necessary to enable 
them to perform the duties imposed upon them by the Constitution and laws. 
It is said that the divine and inalienable right of self-defense applies to courts 
and Legislatures, to communities, and states, and nations, as well as individu- 
als. The power, it is said, is coextensive with the duty, and, by virtue of this 
principle, each of these bodies is authorized not only to use the means essen- 
tial to the performance of the duty, but also to exercise the powers necessary 
to remove all obstructions to the discharge of that duty. Let us apply these 
principles to the proceedings at New Orleans, and see to what results they 
will bring us. 

General Jackson was the legally and constitutionally authorized agent of 
the government and the country to defend that city and its adjacent terri- 
tory. His duty, as prescribed by the Constitution and laws, as well as the 
instructions of the War Department, was to defend the city and country at 
every hazard. It was then conceded, and is now conceded on all sides, that 
nothing but martial law would enable him to perform that duty. If, then, 
his power was commensurate with his duty, and (to follow the language of 
the courts) he was authorized to use the means essential to its performance, 
and to exercise the powers necessary to remove all obstructions necessary to 
its accomplishment — he had a right to declare martial law, when it was as- 
certained and acknowledged that nothing but martial law would enable him 
to defend the city and the country. This principle has been recognized and 
acted upon by all civilized nations, and is familiar to those who are conver- 
sant with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend the laws 
and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows out of the necessity ; and 
when the necessity fails, the right ceases. It may be absolute or qualified, 
general or partial, according to the exigencies of the case. The principle is, 
that the general may go so far, and no farther, than is absolutely necessary 
to the defense of the city or district committed to his protection. To this ex- 
tent General Jackson was justifiable ; if he went beyond it the law was against 
him. But, in point of fact, he did not supersede the laws, nor molest the pro- 
ceedings of the civil tribunals, any farther than they were calculated to ob- 
struct the execution of his plans for the defense of the city. In all other re- 
spects the laws prevailed, and were administered as in times of peace, until 



MR. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 63 

the Legislature of the State of Louisiana passed an act suspending them till 
the month of May, in consequence of the impending danger that threatened 
the city. There are exigencies in the history of nations as well as individ- 
uals when necessity becomes the paramount law to which all other consider- 
ations must yield. It is that great first law of nature, which authorizes a 
man to defend his life, his person, his wife and children, at all hazards, and 
by every means in his power. It is that law which authorizes this body to 
repel aggression and insult, and to protect itself in the exercise of its legis- 
lative functions ; it is that law which enables courts to defend themselves and 
punish for contempt. It was this same law which authorized General Jack- 
son to defend New Orleans by resorting to the only means in his power which 
could accomplish the end. In such a crisis, necessity confers the authority 
and defines its limits. If it becomes necessary to blow up a fort, it is right to 
do it ; if it is necessary to sink a vessel, it is right to sink it ; and if it is nec- 
essary to burn a city, it is right to burn it. I will not fatigue the committee 
with a detailed account of the occurrences of that period, and the circum- 
stances surrounding the general, which rendered the danger immediate and 
impending, the necessity unavoidable, the duty imperative, and temporizing 
ruinous. That task has been performed with such felicity and fidelity by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Slidell) as to make a recital of the facts en- 
tirely unnecessary. The enemy — composed of disciplined troops, exceeding 
our force four-fold in numbers — were in the immediate vicinity of the city, 
ready for the attack at any moment. Our own little flotilla already destroy- 
ed ; the city filled with traitors, anxious to surrender; spies transmitting in- 
formation daily and nightly between these traitors and the enemy's camp ; 
the population mostly emigrants from the different European countries, speak- 
ing various languages, unknown to the general in command, which prevent- 
ed any accurate information of the extent of the disaffection ; the dread of a 
servile insurrection, stimulated by the proclamation and the promises of the 
enemy, of which the firing of the first gun was to be the signal — these were 
some of the reasons which produced the conviction in the minds of all who 
were faithful to the country and desirous to see it defended, that their only 
salvation depended upon the existence of martial law. The governor, the 
judges, the public authorities generally, and all the citizens who espoused 
the American cause, came forward, and earnestly entreated General Jack- 
son, for their sakes, to declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining 
the supremacy of the American laws and institutions over British authority 
within the limits of our own territory. General Jackson, concurring with 
them in opinion, promptly issued the order, and enforced it by the weight of 
his authority. The city was saved. The country was defended by a suc- 
cession of the most brilliant military achievements that ever adorned the an- 
nals of this or any other country, in this or any other age. Martial law was 
continued no longer than the danger (and, consequently, the necessity) ex- 
isted. At the time when Louallier was imprisoned and Judge Hall was sent 
out of the city, official news of the signing of the treaty at Ghent had not 
been received; hostilities had not ceased; nor had the enemy retired. On 
the very day the writ of habeas corpus for Louallier was returnable, General 
Jackson received official instructions from the War Department to raise ad- 
ditional troops, and prepare for a Aigorous prosecution of the war. Hearing 
a rumor, on the same day, that a treaty of peace had been signed, he sent a 
proposition to the British general for a cessation of hostilities until official in- 
telligence should be received, which proposition was rejected by the English 
commander. It can not be said, therefore, that the war had closed, or the 
necessity for martial law had ceased. All the considerations which induced 
its declaration required its continuance. If it was right to declare it, it was 
right to enforce and continue it. At all events, Judge Hall and his eulogists 



64 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

are estopped from denying the power or the propriety of the declaration or 
the enforcement of martial law. He advised, urged, and solicited General 
Jackson to declare it, and subsequently expressed his approbation of the act. 
Yes, even that learned, that profound, that immaculate judge, D. A. Hall, 
himself advised and approved of the proceeding. Did he not understand 
the Constitution and laws which it was his duty to administer? or, under- 
standing them, did he advise General Jackson to do an act in direct violation 
of that Constitution which he was sworn to support and protect ? Conscien- 
tious judge ! Advise a military officer, when in the discharge of a high and 
responsible duty, to violate the Constitution, and then arrest and punish him, 
without evidence or trial, for that very violation ! 

Rare specimen of judicial integrity ! Perfidiously advise the general for 
the purpose of entrapping him into the commission of an unlawful act, that 
he might wreak his vengeance upon him according to the most approved 
forms of the Star Chamber ! I would like to hear from his most ardent ad- 
mirers on this floor upon that point. It is material to the formation of a 
correct judgment upon the merits of this question. One of two things is 
necessarily true in this matter : either he was guilty of the most infamous, 
damnable perfidy, or he believed that General Jackson was acting within the 
scope of his rightful authority for the defense of the country, its Constitution, 
and laws. In either event, his conduct was palpably and totally indefensi- 
ble. Having advised the course which General Jackson pursued — even if 
he had changed his opinion as to the correctness of that advice, and the le- 
gality of the acts which had been committed in pursuance of it, and even if, 
under these circumstances, he had felt it his duty to vindicate the supremacy 
of the laws and the authority of his court by inflicting the penalty of the law 
— yet a mere nominal fine (one cent) would have accomplished that object as 
effectually as one thousand dollars. In this view, it was not a case requiring 
exemplary punishment. He did not doubt — he would not doubt — that the 
general had acted conscientiously, under a high sense of duty ; and if he had 
exceeded his authority, if he had committed an en'or, it was an error into 
which he had been led by the advice of that very judge, whose duty it was to 
know the law and advise correctly, and who afterward, with the shameless 
perversity of his nature, enforced a vindictive penalty. I boldly assert that 
the judgment was vindictive, because the amount of the fine, under the cir- 
cumstances of the case, is conclusive upon that point. But if I should grant, 
for the sake of argument (that which I do not admit), that General Jackson 
exceeded his authority, and thereby violated the Constitution and laws, and 
that Judge Hall was clothed with the competent power to punish the of- 
fense, still I am prepared to show that, even in that event, the judgment was 
unjust, irregular, and illegal. The champions of Judge Hall on this floor 
have debated the question as if the mere declaration of martial law of itself 
was a contempt of court, without reference to the fact whether it actually 
interrupted and obstructed the proceedings of the court. Was there ever a 
more fatal and egregious error ? Every unlawful act is not necessarily a 
contempt of court. A man may be guilty of every offense upon the whole 
catalogue of crime, and thus obtain for himself an unenviable immortality, 
without committing a contempt of court. The doctrine of contempts only 
applies to those acts which obstruct the proceedings of the court, and against 
which the general laws of the land do not afford adequate protection. It is 
this same doctrine of necessity, conferring power, and at the same time re- 
stricting its exercise within the narrow limits of self-defense. The rights of 
the citizen, the liberties of the people of this country, are secured by that 
provision of the Constitution of the United States which declares that " the 
trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury ;" and 
also the amendment to the Constitution which requires "a presentment 



ME. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 65 

or indictment of a grand jury." General Jackson, as well as the humblest 
citizen and the vilest criminal, was entitled to the benefit of these constitu- 
tional provisions. If he had violated the Constitution, and suspended the 
laws, and committed crimes, Judge Hall had no right to punish him by the 
summary process of the doctrine of contempts, without indictment, or jury, or 
evidence, or the forms of trial. It is incumbent upon those who defend" and 
applaud the conduct of the judge to point out tbe specific act done by Gen- 
eral Jackson which constituted a contempt of court. The mere declaration 
of martial law is not of that character. If it was improperly and unnecessa- 
rily declared, the general was liable to be tried by a court-martial, according 
to the rules and articles of war established by Congress for that purpose. It 
was a matter over which the civil tribunals had no jurisdiction, and with 
which they had no concern, unless some specific crime had been committed 
or injury clone ; and not even then until it was brought before them accord- 
ing to the forms of law. Some specifications have been made in the speeches 
of gentlemen against General Jackson, which I will notice in their proper 
order. 

The first is the arrest and imprisonment of Louallier on the charge of in- 
stigating treason and mutiny in the general's camp. It is immaterial for the 
purposes of this discussion whether he was actually guilty or not. He stood 
charged with the commission of high crimes, the punishment of which was 
death. He was believed to be guilty, and consequently there was probable 
cause for his arrest and commitment for trial, according to the doctrine of 
the courts. If permitted to go at large, he might have matured and executed 
his plans of mutiny and treason by the aid of the British army, which was 
then hovering around the city. But, supposing this arrest to have been con- 
trary to law, as gentlemen contend, yet it was no contempt of court. If it 
was an offense at all, it was a case of false imprisonment, which was indicta- 
ble before a grand jury and triable by a petit jury. Why did they not pro- 
ceed against General Jackson according to law, and give him a trial by a 
jury of his country, and obtain a verdict according to evidence ? The an- 
swer is obvious: they could not procure a verdict of " Guilty" from an hon- 
est and patriotic jury who had fought in defense of the city under the opera- 
tion of that "terrible martial law," and who had witnessed the necessity for 
its declaration, and its glorious effects in the salvation of the country. 

The next specification which gentlemen make against General Jackson is, 
that he did not appear before Judge Hall in obedience to a writ of habeas 
corpus issued by the judge for the liberation of Louallier, who was in confine- 
ment on a charge of mutiny and treason. A simple statement of the facts 
of this case will carry with it the general's justification. The evidence shows 
that the writ was issued on the fifth of the month, and made returnable on the 
sixth, before Judge Hall, at eleven o'clock in the morning, and that it was 
never served on General Jackson, or shown to him, until the evening after- 
ward. Hence it was impossible for him to have complied with the injunc- 
tions of that writ, if he had desired to do so. The writ had spent its force, 
had expired, was functus officio before it reached General Jackson. There 
was no command of the court remaining that could be obeyed, the time had 
elapsed. These facts were distinctly set forth by General Jackson, under 
oath, in his answer to the rule of court requiring him to show cause why he 
should not be punished for contempt ; and they have never been denied. In 
fact, there is an abundance of corroborative evidence to the same effect. 
From these facts, it is clear, first, that General Jackson had committed no 
contempt of court ; and, secondly, if he had, he fully purged himself of the 
alleged offense. 

The next specification in the catalogue of crimes which gentlemen charge 
upon the hero of New Orleans is, that he forcibly seized and retained posses- 



66 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

sion of the writ, and the affidavit on which it was issued. The facts are, 
that when the writ and affidavit were brought to him for service, after the 
time for its return had elapsed and it had become a nullity, he discovered 
that a material alteration had been made, in the handwriting of the judge, 
not only in the writ, but also in the affidavit, without the consent of the man 
who had sworn to it. These alterations of themselves rendered the papers 
void, even if they had been originally valid, and had not expired of their own 
limitation ; but, as they contained the evidence upon their face of the crime 
of forgery, it was important that General Jackson should retain possession of 
them, lest they should be destroyed and the evidence lost. With this view, 
the general did retain the originals and furnish certified copies to the judge. 
These transactions did not occur in the presence of the judge or his court, nor 
when his court was in session, and, of course, could not legally be punished 
by the summary process of contempt. If they were illegal, why not give the 
benefit of a fair trial by a jury of his country, as guaranteed by the Constitu- 
tion and laws ? No ; this was arbitrarily and unjustly withheld from him, 
thereby denying him the privilege of proving his innocence. 

The next, and the last, of these high crimes and misdemeanors imputed to 
Jackson at New Orleans is that of arresting Judge Hall and sending him be- 
yond the limits of the city, with instructions not to return until peace was re- 
stored. The justification of this act is found in the necessity which required 
the declaration of martial law, and its continuance and enforcement until the 
enemy should have left our shores, or the treaty of peace should have been 
ratified and published. The judge had confederated with Louallier and the 
rest of that band of conspirators, who were attempting to defeat the efforts of 
the American general for the defense of the city. Their movements were 
dangerous, because they were protected by the power of civil law, in the per- 
son of Judge Hall, by a perversion of the privileges of the writ of habeas cor- 
pus. The general was driven to an extremity, in which he was compelled 
either to abandon the city to whatever fate the conspirators might choose to 
consign it, or to resolutely maintain his authority by the exertion of his own 
power. He took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond the lines of 
his camp. The question arises, was this act a contempt of court? The 
court was not in session, he did not interrupt its proceeding, he did not ob- 
struct its progress, but he did imprison the man who had been exercising the 
powers of judge. If that imprisonment had been unlawful, the general was 
liable to be indicted for false imprisonment, and, like any other offender, to 
be tried and condemned according to the forms of law. But the judge had 
no right to say "vengeance is mine," and I will visit it upon the head of my 
enemy until the measure of my revenge is full. 

Now, sir, I have disposed of all the specifications of crime, and oppression, 
and tyranny which have been charged upon General Jackson by his enemies 
upon this floor, in connection with his defense of New Orleans. I have en- 
deavored to state the facts truly, and fairly apply the principles of law to 
them. I will thank the most learned and astute lawyer upon this floor to 
point out which one of those acts was a contempt of court, in the legal sense 
of that term, so as to authorize a summary infliction of punishment without 
evidence, trial, or jury ? No gentleman has yet specified the act, and ex- 
plained wherein the contempt consisted ; and I presume no one will venture 
on so difficult a task. It is more prudent to deal in vague generalities and 
high-sounding declamation, first about the horrors of arbitrary power and 
lawless violence, then the supremacy of the laws and the glorious privileges 
of the writ of habeas corpus. These things sound very well, and are right in 
their proper place. I do not wish to extenuate the one or depreciate the 
other ; but when I hear gentlemen attempting to justify this unrighteous fine 
upon General Jackson upon the ground of non-compliance with rules of 



MR. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 67 

court and mere formalities, I must confess that I can not appreciate the force 
of the argument. In cases of war and desolation, in times of peril and dis- 
aster, we should look at the substance and not the shadow of things. I envy 
not the feelings of the man who can reason coolly and calmly about the force 
of precedents and the tendency of examples in the fury of the war-cry, when 
" booty and beauty" is the watchword. Talk not to me about rules and forms 
in court when the enemy's cannon are pointed at the door, and the flames en- 
circle the cupola ! The man whose stoicism would enable him to philos- 
ophize coolly under these circumstances would fiddle while the Capitol was 
burning, and laugh at the horror and anguish that surrounded him in the 
midst of the conflagration ! I claim not the possession of these remarkable 
feelings. I concede them all to those who think that the savior of New 
Orleans ought to be treated like a criminal for not possessing them in a 
higher degree. Their course in this debate has proved them worthy disci- 
ples of the doctrine they profess. Let them receive all the encomiums which 
such sentiments are calculated to inspire. 

But, sir, for the purposes of General Jackson's justification, I care not 
whether his proceedings were legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitu- 
tional, with or without precedent, if they were necessary for the salvation 
of that city. And I care as little whether he observed all the rules and forms 
of court, and technicalities of the law, which some gentlemen seem to con- 
sider the perfection of reason and the essence of wisdom. There was but 
one form necessary on that occasion, and that was to point cannon and de- 
stroy the enemy. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Barnard), to whose 
speech I have had occasion to refer so frequently, has informed us that this 
bill is unprecedented. I have no doubt this remark is technically true ac- 
cording to the most approved forms. I presume no case can be found on 
record, or traced by tradition, where a fine, imposed upon a general for sav- 
ing his country, at the peril of his life and reputation, has ever been refund- 
ed. Such a case would furnish a choice page in the history of any country. 
I grant that it is unprecedented, and for that reason we desire on this day 
to make a pi-ecedent which shall command the admiration of the world, and 
be transmitted to future generations as an evidence that the people of this 
age and in this country were not unjust to their benefactor. This bill is un- 
precedented, because no court ever before imposed a fine under the same cir- 
cumstances. In this respect Judge Hall himself stands unprecedented. 

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Dawson), who addressed the commit- 
tee the other day, told us that General Wilkinson declared martial law at 
New Orleans and enforced it at the time of Burr's conspiracy. Where was 
Judge Hall then that he did not vindicate the supremacy of the laws and the 
authority of his court ? Why did he not then inflict the penalty of the law 
upon the perpetrator of such a gross infraction of the Constitution which he 
was sworn to defend and support ? Perhaps his admirers here will tell us 
that he did not advise, and urge, and entreat General Wilkinson to declare 
martial law. I believe that feature does distinguish the two cases, and 
gentlemen are entitled to all the merit they can derive from it. I am in- 
formed that in one of those trying cases during the last war, which required 
great energy and nerve, and self-sacrificing patriotism, General Gaines had 
the firmness to declare martial law at Sackett's Harbor ; and when, after the 
danger had passed, he submitted himself to the civil authorities, he received 
the penalty of the law in the shape of a public dinner instead of a vindictive 
punishment. I doubt not many other cases of a similar nature may be 
found, if any one will take the trouble of examining the history of our two 
wars with Great Britain. Bat if the gentleman from New York intended to 
assert that it was unprecedented for Congress to remunerate military and 
naval commanders for fines, judgments, and damages assessed against them 



68 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

by courts for violating the laws in the honest discharge of their public duties, 
I must be permitted to inform him that he has not examined the legislation 
of his country in that respect. If the gentleman will read the speech of the 
pure, noble, and lamented Linn in the Senate, in May, 1842, he will find 
there a long list of cases in which laws of this kind have been passed. 

He said, "There were precedents innumerable where officers have been 
found guilty of breaches of law in the discharge of their public duty, and 
therefore calling for the interference of a just government. Of these it is 
only necessary to introduce a few where the government did interpose and 
give relief to the injured officer. These cases commenced as early as August, 
1790, and have continued down to the present time. Thus, in April, 1818, 
Major General Jacob Brown was indemnified for damages sustained under 
sentence of civil law for having confined an individual found near his camp 
suspected of traitorous designs. 

"At the same session Captain Austin and Lieutenant Wells were indemni- 
fied against nine judgments, amounting to upward of $6000,for having con- 
fined nine individuals suspected of treachery to the country. In this case 
it was justly remarked by the secretary of war (John C. Calhoun), that 'if 
it should be determined that no law authorized' the act, 'yet I would re- 
spectfully suggest that there may be cases in the exigencies of the war in 
which, if the commander should transcend his legal power, Congress ought 
to protect him, and those who acted under him, from consequential dam- 
ages.' 

"In the case of General Eobert Swartwout in 1823, the committee by 
whom it was reported stated that ' it is considered one of those extreme cases 
of necessity in which an overstepping of the established legal rules of society 
stands fully justified.' " 

I will not occupy the time of the committee with further quotations, but 
will refer those who may wish to examine the subject to the speech itself, and 
the cases there cited. 

These cases fully sustain the position I have taken, and prove that the 
government has repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine that in 
cases of " extreme necessity the commander is fully justified" in superseding 
the civil laws, and that Congress will always "make remuneration when they 
are satisfied he acted with the sole view of promoting the public interests con- 
fided to his command." The principle deducible from all the cases is, that 
when the necessity is extreme and unavoidable, the commander is fully justi- 
fied, provided he acted in good faith ; and, in either event, Congress will al- 
ways make remuneration. Then, sir, I trust I have shown to the satisfaction 
of all candid men that, instead of this bill being unprecedented, the opposi- 
tion — the fierce, bitter, vindictive, opposition to its passage is unprecedented 
in the annals of American legislation. Are gentlemen desirous of making 
General Jackson an exception to those principles of justice which have pre- 
vailed in all other cases ? They mistake the character of the American peo- 
ple if they suppose they sever the cords which bind them to their great ben- 
efactor by continued acts of wanton injustice and base ingratitude. 

Why this persevering resistance to the will of the people, which has been 
expressed in a manner too imperative and authoritative to be successfully re- 
sisted ? The people demand this measure, and they will never be quieted 
until their wishes shall have been respected and their will obeyed. They 
will ask, they will demand the reason why General Jackson has been select- 
ed as the victim, and his case made an ignominious exception to the princi- 
ples which have been adopted in all other cases, from the foundation of the 
government until the present moment. Was there any thing in his conduct 
at New Orleans to justify this wide departure from the uniform practice of 
the government, and single him out as an outlaw who had forfeited all claim 



MR. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 69 

to the justice and protection of his country ? Does the man live who will 
have the hardihood to question his patriotism, his honesty, the purity of his 
motives in every act he performed, and every power he exercised on that 
trying occasion ? While none dare impeach his motives, they tell us he as- 
sumed almost unlimited power. 

I commend him for it ; the exigency required it. I admire that elevation 
of soul which rises above all personal considerations, and, regardless of con- 
sequences, stakes life, and honor, and glory upon the issue, when the salva- 
tion of the country depends upon the result. I also admire that calmness, 
moderation, and submission to rightful authority, which should always pre- 
vail in times of peace and security. The conduct of General Jackson fur- 
nished the most brilliant specimens of each the world ever witnessed. I 
know not which to applaud most, his acts of high responsibility and deeds 
of noble daring in the midst of peril and danger, or his mildness, and mod- 
eration, and lamb-like submission to the laws and civil authorities when peace 
was restored to his country. 

Can gentlemen see nothing to admire, nothing to commend, in the closing 
scenes, when, fresh from the battle-field, the victorious general — the idol of 
his army and the acknowledged savior of his countrymen — stood before Judge 
Hall, and quelled the tumult and indignant murmurs of the multitude by 
telling him that "the same arm which had defended the city from the rav- 
ages of a foreign enemy should protect him in the discharge of his duty?" 
Is this the conduct of a lawless desperado, who delights in trampling upon 
Constitution, and law/and right? Is there no reverence for the supremacy 
of the laws and the civil institutions of the country displayed on this occa- 
sion ? If such acts of heroism and moderation, of chivalry and submission, 
have no charms to excite the admiration or soften the animosities of gentlemen 
in the Opposition, I have no desire to see them vote for this bill. The char- 
acter of the hero of New Orleans requires no endorsement from such a source. 
They wish to fix a mark, a stigma of reproach, upon his character, and send 
him to his grave branded as a criminal. His stern, inflexible adherence to 
Democratic principles, his unwavering devotion to his country, and his in- 
trepid opposition to her enemies, have so long thwarted their unhallowed 
schemes of ambition and power, that they fear the potency of his name on 
earth, even after his spirit shall have ascended to heaven. 

The bill passed the House, and subsequently passed the Sen- 
ate. 

After the adjournment of Congress, Messrs. Polk and Clay 
having been nominated for the Presidency by their respective 
parties, a monster convention was held at Nashville, Tennessee, 
to which delegations and distinguished men from all the West- 
ern States were invited. A large delegation from Illinois, in- 
cluding Mr. Douglas, went to Nashville. The attendance was 
immense. A letter now before us from one who was present 
states : " It was a monster gathering ; forty acres were scarce- 
ly able to afford standing-room for the vast assemblage of men 
and women there collected from nearly every state in the 
Union. Some of the most brilliant orators in the country were 
there ; the masses hung upon their lips day after day with in- 
creased interest, but at last the hour came for the adjournment. 



70 LIFE OP STEPHBN A. DOUGLAS. 

Many had come from a great distance, not only to attend the 
convention, but also to see that great man who had for so 
long a period and so prominently occupied the hearts of his 
countrymen. They could not leave without the long-wished- 
for pleasure of seeing Andrew Jackson. The moment the 
speaking had closed, the immense throng turned their steps to- 
ward the ' Hermitage.' I remember well the appearance of the 
vast procession — the countless multitude, as it came surging 
down the main road leading to the home of Jackson. As the 
people entered the avenue leading from the high road to the 
plain but capacious dwelling, the old patriot, though feeble 
from age, roused himself once more to receive the sincere and 
unbought homage of his grateful and confiding countrymen. 
He took a seat on a sofa in the large hall opposite to the porch 
and entrance. The multitude filled every standing-point in 
front of the mansion. Affectionate friends surrounded him ; 
the throng asked but the privilege of seeing and taking him by 
die hand once more. They approached in files, shook hands 
with him, and then passed on through the hall. Thousands 
passed thus before the old hero. * * * * At last our friend, 
Judge Douglas, of Illinois, approached. I remember well how 
pale he looked, and how small and plain he seemed beside the 
hundreds of robust and gallant specimens of Tennessee man- 
hood. Governor Clement C. Clay, of Alabama, a senator of 
the United States, had been for some time acting as the me- 
dium of introduction to strangers. The scene that ensued was 
one never to be forgotten." 

One of the Illinois delegation who accompanied Judge 
Douglas was William "Walters, Esq., the editor of the " Il- 
linois State Register," the most influential as well as the 
ablest conducted paper in the state. Mr. Walters was with 
Judge Douglas at the moment of his introduction to General 
Jackson, and on his return to Springfield a few days thereafter 
he published the following description of what took place : 

"Every thing that relates to Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans 
and the friend of his country, is of deep interest to the American people ; 
and although the incident we are about to relate is in itself of no great in- 
terest, it becomes so to us in consequence of those connected with it. 

"At the Nashville Convention of August last, we visited the Hermitage, 
only twelve miles distant, in company with Judge Douglas, of this state, and 
some others of our fellow-citizens. The Hermitage was crowded with peo- 
ple from almost every state, who had been invited thither by the venerable 
patriot on the day succeeding the convention. 



ME. DOUGLAS AND GENERAL JACKSON. 71 

• ' Governor Clay, of Alabama, was near General Jackson, who was him- 
self sitting on a sofa in the hall, and as each person entered, the governor in- 
troduced him to the hero and he passed along. When Judge Douglas was 
thus introduced, General Jackson raised his still brilliant eyes and gazed for 
a moment in the countenance of the judge, still retaining his hand. 'Are 
you the Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, who delivered a speech last session on the 
subject of the fine imposed on me for declaring martial law at New Orleans ?' 
asked General Jackson. 

" 'I have delivered a speech in the House of Representatives upon that 
subject,' was the modest reply of our friend. 

" 'Then stop,' said General Jackson ; ' sit down here beside me. I de- 
sire to return you my thanks for that speech. You are the first man that 
has ever relieved my mind on a subject which has rested upon it for thirty 
years. My enemies have always charged me with violating the Constitution 
of my country by declaring martial law at New Orleans, and my friends have 
always admitted the violation, but have contended that circumstances justi- 
fied me in that violation. I never could understand how it was that the per- 
formance of a solemn duty to my country — a duty which, if I had neglected, 
would have made me a traitor in the sight of God and man, could properly 
be pronounced a violation of the Constitution. I felt convinced in my own 
mind that I was not guilty of such a heinous offense ; but I could never make 
out a legal justification of my course, nor has it ever been done, sir, until 
you, on the floor of Congress, at the late session, established it beyond the 
possibility of cavil or doubt. I thank you, sir, for that speech. It has re- 
lieved my mind from the only circumstance that rested painfully upon it. 
Throughout my whole life I never performed an official act which I viewed 
as a violation of the Constitution of my country ; and I can now go down to 
the grave in peace, with the perfect consciousness that I have not broken, at 
any period of my life, the Constitution or laws of my country.' 

"Thus spoke the old hero, his countenance brightened by emotions which 
it is impossible for us to describe. We turned to look at Douglas — he was 
speechless. He could not reply, but convulsively shaking the aged veteran's 
hand, he rose and left the hall. Certainly General Jackson had paid him 
the highest compliment he could have bestowed on any individual." 

It has been stated publicly, and we know of no reason for 
questioning the truth of the statement, that General Jackson, 
at his death, bequeathed all his papers to Francis P. Blair, 
the editor of the Washington Globe, and that among them 
was found the pamphlet copy of Judge Douglas's speech, with 
an endorsement, in Jackson's own handwriting, signed by him, 
in these words : " This speech constitutes my defense ; I lay it 
aside as an inheritance for my grandchildren." 

It is doubtful whether, in the long and eventful public life 
of Mr. Douglas, there has ever been a moment when words 
of applause and approbation have ever sounded so pleasant in 
his ears as those thrilling sentences of the venerable hero, Gen- 
eral Jackson. 

On the 8th of January. 1853, the magnificent equestrian 
statue of Jackson, by Clark Mills, was erected in Lafayette 
Square, Washington City, and the committee of arrangements 



12 LIFE OP STEPHEN* A. DOUGLAS. 

had previously invited Mr. Douglas to deliver the oration on 
the occasion. As the orator was selected because of his well- 
known efforts in the cause of the patriot, and because of the 
high esteem in which General Jackson held him, the invitation 
was most appropriately directed to Mr. Douglas. On that 
occasion Mr. Douglas delivered a most polished and graceful 
address, in which he reviewed the policy of preserving the 
memory of the deeds of the great and good by the aid of the 
highest works of art. He gave, also, a graphic and eloquent 
sketch of General Jackson's history, personal, military, and po- 
litical, and pointed with a touching power to his brilliant ex- 
ample as one which could never fail to deserve the approval of 
the American people. The following extract gives, in a few 
words, his rapid recapitulation of General Jackson's peculiari- 
ties as a statesman. 

" The high qualities which, in a different theatre, had sus- 
tained him in every emergency, enabled him to rise superior 
to all resistance, never failed him in his civil administration. 
Calm, patient, and even deferential in counsel, when his opin- 
ion was matured and his resolution formed he threw all the 
fiery energy of his nature into its execution. The history of 
his civil career, like that of his military campaigns, consists of 
a rapid succession of terrific conflicts and brilliant achievements, 
in which he never lost a battle or failed in a skirmish. His 
state papers will stand forth, so long as the history of this re- 
public shall be read, as imperishable monuments to his states- 
manship." 

The candid observer of Mr. Douglas's own course as a states- 
man will not be at a loss to know whose example he has fol- 
lowed so successfully as a public man and as a statesman. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 

Mr. Douglas was one of the most ardent supporters of the 
annexation of Texas. In 1844 the Democratic convention 
coupled the annexation of Texas with the Oregon question,, 
and thenceforth Mr. Douglas, as well from his own judgment 
as because they formed part of the Democratic platform, stren- 
uously supported both measures. A portion of the party sur- 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 1Z 

rendered 54° 40', much to his regret and against his earnest 
protest; but he still adhered to the other measure, and was 
one of the most able advocates it had in Congress. His speech 
on the annexation of Texas stands upon the record not exceed- 
ed, and rarely equaled, in point of ability, by any of the very 
many elaborate speeches made upon that subject. 

While the joint resolution was pending, he proposed that 
the Missouri line of 36° 30' should be preserved as a settle- 
ment of the slavery question, and that it should be renewed 
and perpetuated in the resolution of annexation. Though the 
resolution subsequently adopted was not the one proposed by 
Mr. Douglas, yet his proposition applying the line of 36° 30' 
to the territory acquired by the annexation was incorporated 
into the measure, and subsequently became part of the law. 
His course upon this point is sufficiently elucidated in subse- 
quent chapters, and it is unnecessary farther to refer to it here. 

THE MEXICAN WAR. 

Texas was annexed in 1845, and at the next session was ad- 
mitted into the Union. The events following that action of 
the United States resulted in the invasion of American soil by 
Mexican troops. 

On the 11th of May, 1846, President Polk informed Con- 
gress that war existed by the act of Mexico, and urged that 
Congress should authorize the President to call into the service 
of the United States a force of volunteer troops. In the House 
of Representatives (of which Mr. Douglas was then a rnembSr) 
the message was read. The reading of the most voluminous 
correspondence was called for. The message and correspond- 
ence were laid on the table, and, pending a motion to print, 
they were taken from the table and referred to the Committee 
of the Whole. They were also ordered to be printed. The 
House then went into Committee of the Whole. On the 27th 
of January the Committee on Military Affairs had reported a 
bill authorizing the President to accept the services of volun- 
teers in case of the invasion of the soil of the United States, 
etc. The bill had not been prepared with any reference to a 
war with Mexico, but was a general bill, and had stood on the 
calendar from the day it was reported without any action. 

This bill was taken up. The committee rose immediately, 
and a resolution was offered to close debate in committee on 

D 



74 LIFE OF STEPHEN «4. DOUGLAS. 

that bill in two hours. The House adopted the resolution, re- 
fusing the yeas and nays on the question. The House again 
went into committee, and a large portion of the documents 
were read, occupying an hour and a half in the reading. The 
peril of General Taylor's little army was imminent, and imme- 
diate action was necessary. The bill was amended so as to au- 
thorize the raising of 50,000 volunteers, and appropriating ten 
millions of dollars. The difficulty was in arranging the pre- 
amble. Various propositions were made, and the preamble 
was eventually agreed upon in the following words : 

" Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of 
war exists between that government and the United States." 

Mr. Delano, of Ohio, offered a proviso condemning the Pres- 
ident in taking armed occupation of the territory lying be- 
tween the River Nueces and the Rio del Norte. This was 
rejected. The bill was reported to the House. The vote on 
adopting the preamble was, yeas 123, nays 67. The bill then 
passed, yeas 174, nays 14. 

The subject of the war was considered and debated on an 
appropriation bill, and two days thereafter, on May 13th, Mr. 
Delano having addressed the House, Mr. Douglas, in an im- 
promptu reply, made a most thorough vindication of the war 
and of President Polk's policy. That speech was never sur- 
passed, and, as it is part of his history, and of the history of 
the administration he supported so ably, it is here annexed 
entire. It is the most concise and yet thorough presentation 
of the title of the United States to the Rio del Norte as the 
boundary of Texas ever presented in Congress. The speech 
was regarded then, as it will be now, as a most powerful argu- 
ment in justification of the war, and of the American title to 
the whole of Texas. Its effect upon the House was very great. 
It gave to Mr. Douglas an increased popularity, and added 
greatly to his rising fame as an orator and debater. His col- 
loquies with the venerable John Quixcy Adams drew from 
that gentleman subsequently the highest commendations for 
their readiness and ability. 

Mr. Douglas rose to reply to the speech of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Delano), who had just taken his seat. Several members proposed that the 
committee rise, with a view to adjournment, that he might speak in the 
morning, if he preferred that course. He declined to avail himself of their 
courtesy, as his remarks would necessarily be desultory and without prepara- 
tion, and directed principally to the points which had already been touched 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 75 

in the discussion. My object (said he) is to vindicate our government and 
country from the aspersions and calumnies which have been cast upon them 
by several gentlemen in the course of this debate, in connection with the 
causes which have led to the existing war with Mexico. I prefer to meet 
and repel those charges at once, while they are fresh in our minds, and to 
demonstrate, so far as my feeble abilities will enable me to do so, that our 
government has not been in the wrong, and Mexico in the right, in the origin 
and progress of the pending controversy. The gentleman from Ohio has 
been so kind as to herald my expectant advent before my arrival, and to 
announce that I was about to follow him in the debate. I suppose he drew 
such an inference from the fact that I entered the hall while he was speak- 
ing, took a seat near him, and listened to his speech with the most respectful 
attention. He certainly had no other authority for the announcement. 
Acting on this supposition, he has addressed a large portion of his remarks 
to me, and invited a special answer from me to the main points of his argu- 
ment. I propose to gratify him in this request ; and while I shall speak 
with freedom and boldness of his positions and. arguments, I shall endeavor 
to observe that courtesy toward him individually which is consistent with an 
appropriate reply to such an extraordinary speech. I commend the patriot- 
ism, if not the morality of the sentiment which he quoted at the beginning, 
and repeated several times during the course of his remarks : "I go for my 
country, right or wrong." I fear, however, that this sentiment, once so 
much applauded by our countrymen, is about to be brought into ridicule 
and contempt by the use which that gentleman and his coadjutors are now 
disposed to make of it. They tell us that they go for their country, right or 
wrong ; but they insist that their country is and has been all the time in the 
wrong. They profess to support the war, but they vote against the law 
which recognizes its existence and provides the means — the money and the 
men — to expel a hostile army that has invaded our country and butchered 
our citizens. They profess great anxiety for the triumph of our arms, but 
they denounce the war — the cause in which our country is engaged — as 
"unholy, unrighteous, and damnable." 

Mr. J. W. Houston. Who made use of that expression ? Was it any gen- 
tleman on this side of the house ? 

Mr. Dotiglas. Yes, sir. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Delano), who 
has just taken his seat, made use of the identical words, and repeated them 
several times, with great emphasis, in the course of his speech, while the 
great body of his political friends listened with the most profound respect, 
and gave every indication of approbation and encouragement by expressions, 
looks, and nods of assent. Even now I see the venerable gentleman from 
Massachusetts nodding his approval of the sentiment. 

Mr. J. Q. Adams. Yes, sir, I endorse and approve every word and syllable 
of it. 

Mr. Douglas. So I supposed, from the marked indications of approbation 
which that gentleman and his friends gave to all the attacks which have been 
made, during this discussion, upon the rights, interests, and honor of our 
country. He is more bold and less politic in the expression of his opinions. 

They, after a little reflection, discover the expediency of concealment ; 
but the lamentable fact is too palpable, that their feelings and sympathies 
are in perfect unison ; since he has had the hardihood to avow the sentiment, 
I suppose they will consider its profanity and moral treason perfectly consist- 
ent with their professions of Christianity and patriotism. What reliance 
shall we place on the sincerity of gentlemen's professions, that they are for 
their country, right or wrong, when they exert all their power and influence 
to put their country in the wrong in the eyes of Christendom, and invoke 
the wrath of Heaven upon us for our manifold national crimes and aggres- 



76 LIFE OF STEPELfflST A. DOUGLAS. 

sions ? With professions of patriotism on their lips, do they not show that 
their hearts are with the enemy ? They appeal to the consciences and relig- 
ious scruples of our countrymen to unite in execration of our government for 
supporting what they denounce as an unholy, unrighteous, and damnable 
cause. They predict that the vengeance of God will fall upon us ; that 
sickness, and carnage, and death will be our portion ; that defeat and dis- 
grace will attend our arms. Is there not treason in the heart that can feel, 
and poison in the breath that can utter such sentiments against their own 
country, when forced to take up arms in self-defense, to repel the invasion 
of a brutal and perfidious foe ? They for their country, right or wrong ! 
who tell our people, if they rally under their country's standard, their bones 
will bleach on the plains of Mexico, and the enemy will look down from the 
mountain-top to behold the destruction of our armies by disease, and all those 
mysterious elements of death which divine Providence employs to punish a 
wicked people for prosecuting an unholy and unjust war ! Sir, I tell these 
gentlemen it requires more charity than falls to the lot of frail man to believe 
that the expression of such sentiments is consistent with the sincerity of their 
professions — with patriotism, honor, and duty to their country. Patriotism 
emanates from the heart ; it fills the soul ; inspires the whole man with a 
devotion to his country's cause, and speaks and acts the same language. 
America wants no friends, acknowledges the fidelity of no citizen who, after 
war is declared, condemns the justice of her cause and sympathizes with the 
enemy. All such are traitors in their hearts, and it only remains for them 
to commit some overt act for which they may be dealt with according to 
their deserts. The gentleman from Ohio has condemned the action of his 
own government, not only on account of the war and the causes which pro- 
duced it, but has assailed with equal virulence all efforts to restore the ami- 
cable relations of the two countries by peaceable means. He has arraigned 
the administration for the appointment of Mr. Slidell as minister to Mexico 
on an errand of peace, and dwells with apparent delight and triumph on the 
fruitless results of the mission. He is dissatisfied with both peace and war, 
is willing to embrace neither alternative, and condemns all efforts to adjust 
the matters in dispute by either means. He thinks that nothing good can 
come out of Nazareth, and seems determined to find fault with his own gov- 
ernment, whatever its policy. Not content with assailing the administra- 
tion and all its movements, peaceful and belligerent, he has passed from the 
Del Norte to 50° 40' for the purpose of paying his respects to myself, in his 
own peculiar way. He has been pleased to represent me as standing on an 
iceberg, breathing defiance to the British lion, while abandoned by a portion 
of my own friends, upon whose support I had a right to rely with confidence. 
If this be true, it was a grievance personal to myself, which I had a right 
to avenge in my own way, without the interference of the gentleman from 
Ohio. 

I will assure you that I have never been disappointed in an expectation 
that he would stand by me in any struggle for maintaining the rights and 
honor of the country, whether in reference to Texas or Oregon. In regard 
to that portion of my political friends to whom he alludes, I am free to con- 
fess that I did sincerely regret that they did not take the same view of our 
rights and duties in respect to the Oregon question which I entertained and 
fearlessly expressed. I made no disguise of my sentiments and feelings. 
Oar disagreement on that question was open and unequivocal. I did con- 
demn their refusal to take up their position on 54° 40', and stand there, re- 
gardless of consequences. My opinions have undei'gone no change in that 
respect. But it is clue to them that I should now say that I never question- 
ed their patriotism, nor doubted for a moment that, the instant war existed, 
they would rally as one man to their country's standard, merging and ef- 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAE. 77 

facing the slightest trace of a previous difference of opinion. Patriots may- 
differ as to the expediency of a declaration of war, or the wisdom of a course 
of policy which may probably lead to such a result, but honor and duty for- 
bid divided counsels after our country has been invaded, and American blood 
has been shed on American soil by a treacherous foe. Party strife and po- 
litical conflicts should then cease. One sentiment should animate every 
heart ; one object control every movement — the triumph of our country. 
Mr. Chairman, if I could have anticipated the extraordinary turn which has 
been given ■ to this discussion, I could have presented to the committee and 
the country a mass of evidence, from official documents, sufficient to show 
that, for years past, we have had ample cause of war against Mexico, inde- 
pendent of the recent bloody transactions upon the Rio del Norte. I could 
have presented a catalogue of aggressions and insults ; of outrages on our 
national flag — on the persons and property of our citizens ; of the violation 
of treaty stipulations, and the murder, robbery, and imprisonment of our 
countrymen — the very recital of which would suffice to fill the national heart 
with indignation. Well do I recollect that General Jackson, during the last 
year of his administration, deemed the subject of sufficient importance at that 
time to send a special message to Congress, in which he declared, " The wan- 
ton character of some of the outrages upon the persons and property of our 
citizens, upon the officers and flag of the United States, independent of re- 
cent insults to this government and people by the late extraordinary Mex- 
ican minister, would justify, in the eyes of nations, immediate, wary I have 
neither the time nor the documents before me to enable me to go into a re- 
cital of the details of th^se Mexican enormities. They were sufficient, how- 
ever, in the opinion of General Jackson, to justify an immediate resort to 
arms. But her weakness and distracted condition softened our resentment, 
and induced us to endure her aggressions. It is characteristic of our coun- 
try to be magnanimous where forbearance does not become pusillanimity or 
a gross dereliction of duty. I fear we carried our magnanimity too far in 
this instance. Certain it is that it produced no beneficial results ; for at the 
very next session Mr. Van Buren was under the necessity of calling the at- 
tention of Congress to the subject, and adding to the old catalogue a long 
list of new grievances, asking for authority to issue letters of reprisal in case 
prompt satisfaction should not be made. I have in a book before me an ex- 
tract from the report of the secretary of state (Mr. Forsyth) to the President, 
to which I will invite the attention of those who have not examined the sub- 
ject: 

11 Since the last session of Congress an embargo has been laid on Amer- 
ican vessels in the ports of Mexico. Although raised, no satisfaction has 
been made or offered for the resulting injuries. Our merchant vessels have 
been captured for disregarding a pretended blockade of Texas ; vessels and 
cargoes, secretly proceeded against in Mexican tribunals, condemned and 
sold. The captains, crews, and passengers of the captured vessels have been 
imprisoned and plundered of their property ; and, after enduring insults and 
injuries, have been released without remuneration or apology. For these 
acts no reparation has been promised or explanations giveH, although satis- 
faction was, in general terms, demanded in July last." 

Aside from the insults to our flag, the indignity to the nation, and the in- 
jury to our commerce, it is estimated that not less than ten millions of dol- 
lars are due to our citizens for these and many other outrages which Mexico 
has committed within the last fifteen years. When pressed by our govern- 
ment for adjustment and remuneration, she has resorted to all manner of ex- 
pedients to procrastinate and delay. She has made treaties acknowledging 
the justice of our claims, and then refused to ratify them, on the most friv- 
olous pretexts, and, even when ratified, has failed to comply with their stip- 



78 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

illations. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of the United 
States in 1837 made a report upon the subject, in which they said, "If the 
government of the United States were to exact strict and prompt redress from 
Mexico, your committee might with justice recommend an immediate resort 
to war or reprisal." The Committee on Foreign Aifairs on the part of the 
House of Representatives, at the same session, say: "The merchant vessels 
of the United States have been fired into, her citizens attacked and even put 
to death, and her ships of war treated with disrespect when paying a friend- 
ly visit to a port where they had a right to expect hospitality ; " and, in con- 
clusion, the committee observe that " they fully concur with the President 
that ample cause exists for taking redress into their own hands, and believe 
we should be justified, in the opinion of other nations, for taking such a step." 
Such was the posture of our affairs with Mexico in 1837 and 1838, and the 
opinion of the several departments of our government in regard to the char- 
acter and enormity of the outrages complained of. These transactions all 
occurred years before the question of the annexation of Texas was favorably 
entertained by our government. We had been the first to recognize the in- 
dependence of Texas, as well as that of Mexico, before the national existence 
of either had been acknowledged by the parent country. In doing this we 
only exercised an undoubted right, according to the laws of nations, and our 
example was immediately followed by France, England, and all the principal 
powers of Europe. The question of the annexation of Texas to this country 
was not then seriously mooted. The proposition had been made by Texas, 
and promptly rejected by our government. Of course, there could be noth- 
ing growing out of that question which could have given the slightest cause 
of offense to Mexico, or can be urged in palliation of the monstrous outrages 
which for a long series of years previous she had been committing upon the 
rights, interests, and honor of our country. But our causes of complaint do 
not stop here. In 1842, Mr. Thompson, our minister to that country, felt 
himself called upon to issue an address to the diplomatic corps at Mexico, in 
which, after reciting our grievances, he said : 

"Not only have we never done an act of an unfriendly character toward 
Mexico, but I confidently assert that, from the very moment of the existence 
of the republic, we have allowed to pass unimproved no opportunity of doing 
Mexico an act of kindness. I will not now enumerate the acts of that char- 
acter, both to the government of Mexico and to the citizens, public and pri- 
vate. If this government choose to forget them, I will not recall them. 
While such has been our course to Mexico, it is with pain I am forced to say 
that the open violation of the rights of American citizens by the authorities 
of Mexico have been greater for the last fifteen years than those of all the 
governments of Christendom united ; and yet we have left the redress of all 
these multiplied and accumulated wrongs to friendly negotiation, without 
having ever intimated a disposition to resort to force." _ 

It should be borne in mind that all these insults and injuries were commit- 
ted before the annexation of Texas to the United States — before the propo- 
sition was ever seriously entertained by this government. Of course, the 
subsequent consummation of that measure can afford no pretext for these 
atrocities previously committed. The same system of plunder and outrage 
was pursued, only on a smaller scale, toward France and England. For of- 
fenses of the samec haracter, only less aggravated, and not one tenth as 
numerous, France made her demand for reparation, and proclaimed her ul- 
timatum from the deck of a man-of-war off Vera Cruz. Redress being de- 
nied, the French fleet opened their batteries on the castle of San Juan de 
Ulloa, and compelled the fortress to surrender and the Mexican government 
to accede to their demands, and pay two hundred thousand dollai-s in addi- 
tion, to defray the expenses of enforcing the payment of the claim. The 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 79 

English government also presented claims for remuneration to her subjects 
for similar outrages. Wearied of the dilatory action of the Mexican Con- 
gress, the British minister presented his ultimatum, and, at the same time, 
informed the Mexican government that, in the event of non-compliance with 
the demand, he was instructed to inform the admiral of the Jamaica station 
of the fact, who had been instructed to act in that case, and employ force in 
compelling an acquiescence. The affair was speedily arranged to the satis- 
faction of the British government. Thus we find that remuneration and 
satisfaction were made to England and France for the same injuries of which 
we complain, where their subjects and our citizens were common sufferers. 
Still the wrongs of our citizens are unredressed, and the indignity to the 
honor and flag of the country unavenged. Our wrongs were ten-fold greater 
than theirs in number, enormity, and amount. Their complaints have been 
heard in tones of thunder from the mouths of their cannon, and have been 
adjusted according to the terms dictated by the injured parties. The for- 
bearance of our government to enforce our rights by the same efficient meas- 
ures which they employed has been considered as evidence of our imbecility, 
which gave impunity to the past and license to future aggressions. Hence 
we find that while Great Britain and France, by the energy and efficiency 
with which they enforced their rights, have commanded the respect of Mex- 
ico and re-established their amicable relations, the United States, by an ill- 
advised magnanimity and forbearance toward a weak and imbecile neigh- 
bor, has forfeited her respect, and lost all the advantages of that friendly in- 
tercourse to which our natural position entitles us. Under the operation of 
these causes, our commerce with Mexico has dwindled down by degrees from 
nine millions of dollars per annum to a mere nominal sum, while that of 
France and England has steadily increased, until they have secured a monop- 
oly of the trade and almost a controlling influence over the councils of 
that wretched country. Such was the relative position of Mexico toward 
the United States and other countries when the controversy in regard to the 
annexation of Texas arose. The first proposition for annexation had been 
promptly rejected — in my opinion very unwisely — from a false delicacy to- 
ward the feelings of Mexico. When the question was again agitated, she 
gave notice to this government that she would regard the consummation of 
the measure as a declaration of war. She made the passage of the resolu- 
tion of annexation by the Congress of the United States the pretext for dis- 
solving the diplomatic relations between the two countries. She peremptorily 
recalled her minister from Washington, and virtually dismissed ours from 
Mexico, permitting him, as in the case of all his predecessors, to be robbed 
by her banditti according to the usages of the country. This was followed 
by the withdrawal of the Mexican consuls from our sea-ports, and the sus- 
pension of all commercial intercourse. Our government submitted to these 
accumulated insults and injuries with patience and forbearance, still hoping 
for an adjustment of all our difficulties without being compelled to resort to 
actual hostilities. Impelled by this spirit of moderation, our government de- 
termined to waive all matters of etiquette, and make another effort to restore: 
the amicable relations of the two countries by negotiation. An informal 
application was therefore made to the government of Mexico to know wheth- 
er, in the event we should send a minister to that country, clothed with ample 
powers, she would not receive him with a view to a satisfactory adjustment. 
Having received an affirmative answer, Mr. Slidell was immediately appoint- 
ed and sent to Mexico. Upon his arrival he presented his credentials and 
requested to be formally received. The government of Mexico at first hesi- 
tated, then procrastinated, and finally refused to receive him in his capacity 
of minister. Here, again, the forbearance of our government is most signal- 
ly displayed. Instead of resenting this renewed insult by the chastisement 



80 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

due to her perfidy, our government again resolved to make another effort for 
peace. Accordingly, Mr. Slidell was instructed to remain at some suitable 
place in the vicinity of the city of Mexico until the result of the revolution 
then pending should be known ; and, in the event of success, to make appli- 
cation to the new government to be received as minister. Paredes being 
firmly established in power, with his administration formed, Mr. Slidell again 
applied, and was again rejected. In the mean time, while these events were 
occurring at the capital of Mexico, her armies were marching from all parts 
of the republic toward the boundary of the United States, and were concen- 
trating in large numbers at and near Matamoras. Of course, our govern- 
ment watched all these military movements with interest and vigilance. 
While we were anxious for peace, and were using all the means in our power, 
consistent with honor, to restore friendly relations, the administration was 
not idle in its preparations to meet any crisis that might arise, and, if neces- 
sary in self-defense, to repel force by force. With this view an efficient 
squadron had been sent to the Gulf of Mexico, and a portion of the army 
concentrated between the Nueces and the Kio del Norte, with positive in- 
structions to commit no act of aggression, and to act strictly on the defens- 
ive, unless Mexico unfortunately should commence hostilities and attempt to 
invade our territory. When General Taylor pitched his camp on the banks 
of the Kio del Norte, he sent General Worth across the river to explain to 
the Mexican general and the civil authorities of Matamoras the objects of 
his mission ; that his was not a hostile expedition ; that it was not his inten- 
tion to invade Mexico or commit any act of aggression upon her rights ; 
that he was instructed by his government to act strictly on the defensive, and 
simply to protect American soil and American citizens from invasion and 
aggression ; that the United States desired peace with Mexico ; and, if hos- 
tilities ensued, Mexico would have to strike the first blow. When the two 
armies were thus posted on opposite sides of the river, Colonel Cross, while 
riding alone a few miles from the American camp, was captured, robbed, 
murdered, and quartered. About the same time the Mexican general sent 
a notice to General Taylor that, unless he removed his camp and retired to 
the east side of the Nueces, he should compel him to do so. Subsequently 
General Arista sent a message to General Ta)dor that hostilities already ex- 
isted. On the next day a small portion of our army, while reconnoitring 
the country on the American side of the river, was surrounded, fired upon, 
and the greater portion of them captured or killed. It was then discovered 
that the Mexican army had crossed the river, surrounded the American 
camp, and interposed a large force between General Taylor's encampment 
and Point Isabel, the depot of his provisions and military stores. 

Here we have the causes and origin of the existing war with Mexico. 
The facts which I have briefly recited are accessible to, if not within the 
knowledge of, every gentleman who feels an interest in examining them. 
Their authenticity does not depend upon the weight of my authority. They 
are to be found in full and in detail in the public documents on our tables 
and in our libraries. With a knowledge of the facts, or, at least, professing 
to know them, gentlemen have the hardihood to tell us that the President 
has unwisely and unnecessarily precipitated the country into an unjust and 
unholy war. They express great sympathy for Mexico; profess to regard 
her an injured and persecuted nation — the victim of American injustice and 
aggression. They have no sympathy for the widows and orphans whose 
husbands and fathers have been robbed and murdered by the Mexican au- 
thorities ; no sympathy with our own countrymen who have dragged out 
miserable lives within the walls of her dungeons, without crime and without 
trial ; no indignation at the outrages upon our commerce and shipping, and 
the insults to our national flag ; no resentment at the violation of treaties 
and the invasion of our territory. 



THE A1SNEXATI0N OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 81 

I will now proceed to examine the arguments by which the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Delano], and those with whom he acts, pretend to justify 
their foreign sympathies. They assume that the Rio del Norte was not the 
boundary-line between Texas and Mexico ; that the republic of Texas never 
extended beyond the Nueces, and, consequently, that our government was 
under no obligation, and had no right, to protect the lives and property of 
American citizens beyond that river. In support of that assumption, the 
gentleman has referred to a dispute which he says once arose between the 
provinces of Coahuila and Texas, and the decisions of Almonte, and some 
other Mexican general, thereon, prior to the Texan revolution, and while 
those provinces constituted one state in the Mexican confederation. He has 
also referred to Mrs. Holley's Histoiy of Texas, and, perhaps, some otber 
works, in which we are informed that the same boundary was assigned to 
the Mexican province of Texas. I am not entirely unacquainted with the 
facts and authorities to which the gentleman has alluded, but I am at a loss 
to discover their bearing on the question at issue. True it is that in 1827 
the provinces of Coahuila and Texas were erected into one state, having 
formed for themselves a republican constitution, similar, in most of its pro- 
visions, to those of the several states of our Union. Their constitution pro- 
vided that the State of Coahuila and Texas " is free and independent of the 
other united Mexican states, and of every other foreign power and domin- 
ion ;" that "in all matters relating to the Mexican confederation the state 
delegates its faculties and powers to the general Congress of the same ; but 
in all that properly relates to the administration and entire government of 
the state, it retains its liberty, independence, and sovereignty ;" that, "there- 
fore, belongs exclusively to the same state the right to establish, by means of 
its representatives, its fundamental laws, conformable to the basis sanctioned 
in the constitutional act and the general constitution." This new state, com- 
posed of a union of the two provinces, was admitted into the Mexican con- 
federacy under the general constitution established in 1824, upon the condi- 
tions which I have recited. The province of Coahuila lay on the west side 
of the Rio del Norte, and Texas upon the east. An uncertain, undefined 
boundary divided them ; and, so long as they remained one state, there was 
no necessity for establishing the true line. It is immaterial, therefore, 
whether the Nueces or the Rio del Norte, or an imaginary line between the 
two, was the boundary between Coahuila and Texas, while these provinces 
constituted one state in the Mexican confederacy. I do not deem it necessary 
to go back to a period anterior to the Texan revolution to ascertain the lim- 
its and boundaries of the republic of Texas. But, if the gentleman has so 
great a reverence for antiquity as to reject all authorities which have not be- 
come obsolete and inapplicable in consequence of the changed relations of that 
country, I will gratify his taste in that respect. It must be borne in mind 
that Texas (before her revolution) was always understood to have been a por- 
tion of the old French province of Louisiana, whilst Coahuila was one of the 
Spanish provinces of Mexico. By ascertaining the western boundary of Lou- 
isiana, therefore, prior to its transfer by France to Spain, we discover the di- 
viding line between Texas and Coahuila. I will not weary the patience of 
the House by an examination of the authorities, in detail, by which this point 
is elucidated and established. I will content myself by referring the gentle- 
man to a document in which he will find them all collected and analyzed in 
a masterly manner, by one whose learning and accuracy he will not question. 
I allude to a dispatch (perhaps I might with propriety call it a book, from its 
great length) written by our secretary of state in 1819 to Don Onis, the Span- 
ish minister. The document is to be found in the State Papers in each of 
our libraries. He will there find a multitudinous collection of old maps and 
mustv records, histories and geographies — Spanish, English, and French — by 

D 2 



82 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

which it is clearly established that the Rio del Norte was the western bound- 
ary of Louisiana, and so considered by Spain and France both, when they 
owned the opposite banks of that river. The venerable gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Adams] in that famous dispatch reviews all the authorities 
on either side with a clearness and ability which defy refutation, and demon- 
strate the validity of our title in virtue of the purchase of Louisiana. He 
went farther, and expressed his own convictions, upon a full examination of 
the whole question, that our title as far as the Rio del Norte was as clear as 
to the island of New Orleans. This was the opinion of Mr. Adams in 1819. 
It was the opinion of Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney in 1805. It was the opin- 
ion of Jefferson and Madison — of all our presidents and of all administrations, 
from its acquisition in 1803 to its fatal relinquishment in 1819. I make no 
question with the gentleman as to the applicability and bearing of these facts 
upon the point in controversy. I give them in opposition to the supposed 
facts upon which he seems to rely. I give him the opinions of these eminent 
statesmen in response to those of Almonte and his brother Mexican general. 
Will the gentleman tell us and his constituents that those renowned states- 
men, including his distinguished friend [Mr. Adams], as well as President 
Polk and the American Congress, were engaged in an unholy, unrighteous, 
and damnable cause when claiming title to the Rio del Norte ? I leave the 
gentleman from Ohio and his venerable friend from Massachusetts to settle the 
disputed point of the old boundary of Texas between themselves, trusting that 
they may agree upon some basis of amicable adjustment and compromise. 
But, sir,' I have already said that I do not deem it necessai-y to rely upon 
those ancient anthorities for a full and complete justification of our govern- 
ment in maintaining possession of the country on the left bank of the Rio del 
Norte. Our justification rests upon better and higher evidence, upon a firm- 
er basis — an immutable principle. The republic of Texas held the country 
by a more glorious title than can be traced through the old maps and musty 
records of French and Spanish courts. She held it by the same title that our 
fathers of the Revolution acquired the territory and achieved the independ- 
ence of this republic. She held it by virtue of a successful revolution, a dec- 
laration of independence setting forth the inalienable rights of man, triumph- 
antly maintained by the irresistible power of her arms, and consecrated by the 
precious blood of her glorious heroes. These were her muniments of title. 
By these she acquired the empire which she has voluntarily annexed to our 
Union, and which we have plighted our faith to protect and defend against 
invasion and dismemberment. We received the republic of Texas into the 
Union with her entire territory as an independent and sovereign state, and 
have no right to alienate or surrender any portion of it. This proposition our 
opponents admit, so far as respects the country on this side of the Nueces, but 
they deny both the obligation and the right to go beyond that river. Upon 
what authority they assume the Nueces to have been the boundary of the re- 
public of Texas they have not condescended to inform us. I am unable to 
conceive upon what grounds a distinction can be drawn as to our right to the 
opposite sides of that stream. I know nothing in the history of that repub- 
lic, from its birth to its translation, that would authorize the assumption. 
The same principles and eA'idence which, by common consent, give us title on 
this side of the Nueces, establish our right to the other. The revolution ex- 
tended to either side of the river, and was alike successful on both. Upon 
this point I speak with confidence, for I have taken the precaution, within the 
last few minutes, to have the facts to which I shall refer authenticated by the 
testimony of the two most distinguished actors (one of whom I now recognize 
in my eye) of those thrilling and glorious scenes. Upon this high authority, I 
assume that the first revolutionary army in Texas, in 1835, embraced soldiers 
and officers who were residents of the countrv between the Nueces and the 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAE. 83 

Eio del Norte. These same heroic men, or so many of them as had not been 
butchered by the Mexican soldiery, were active participators in the battle of 
San Jacinto on the 21st of April, 1836, when Santa Ana was captured and 
the Mexican army annihilated. 

Although few in number, and sparsely scattered over a wide surface of 
country, and consequently exposed to the cruelties and barbarities of the en- 
emy, none were more faithful to the cause of freedom, and constant in their 
devotion to the interests of the republic throughout its existence. Immedi- 
ately after the battle of San Jacinto Santa Ana made a proposition to the 
commander of the Texan army (General Houston) to make a treaty of peace, 
by which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas, with the Rio 
del Norte as the boundary. In May, 1836, such a treaty was made between 
the government of Texas and Santa Ana on the part of the Mexican na- 
tion, in which the independence of Texas was acknowledged, and the Rio 
del Norte recognized as the boundary. In pursuance of the provision of this 
treaty, the remnant of the Mexican army was permitted, under the orders of 
Santa Ana, to retire beyond the confines of the republic of Texas, and take 
a position on the other side of the Rio del Norte, which they did accordingly. 

Mr. J. W. Houston. Was that treaty ever ratified by the government of 
Mexico ? 

Mr. Douglas. I am not aware that it was ratified by any body on the part 
of the government of Mexico except Santa Ana and his subordinate officers, 
for the very good reason that he was himself the government at the time. 
Only one year previous he had usurped the government of Mexico, had abol- 
ished the Constitution of 1824, and concentrated all the powers of govern- 
ment in his own hands. To give stability to the power which he had ac- 
quired by the sword, he called a Congress around him, composed of his fol- 
lowers and adherents, and had himself formally proclaimed dictator of the 
republic, and, as such, clothed Avith all the powers of government, civil and 
military. From that moment the government of Mexico was a republic in 
name, but a military despotism in fact. She had no Constitution, no govern- 
ment, except the will of the dictator, and the instruments he chose to select 
to execute his will. In this capacity, he marched his armies into Texas for 
the purpose of reducing those people to subjection to the despotism which he 
had established, and exterminating the last vestige of freedom which remain- 
ed in his dominions. The Texans flew to arms in defense of their liberties, 
in defense of the form of government which they had established for them- 
selves by their state Constitution of 1827, and the national Constitution of 
1824, in pursuance of the provisions of which they had been admitted as a 
sovereign state into the Mexican confederacy. The Texans had taken up 
arms in support, and Santa Ana for the destruction, of the Constitutional gov- 
ernment in Texas. While engaged in this work of desolation with fire and 
sword, committing butcheries and barbarities unknown to civilized warfare, 
Santa Ana fell into the hands of the heroic Houston and his gallant little 
army, a captive to those whom he was striving to reduce to captivity. Then 
it was that the tyrant became a suppliant — a suppliant for his life and liberty 
— at the hands of those he had doomed his victims. Then the dictator bent 
his knee in prayer for mercy, and sued for peace, offering to recognize the in- 
dependence of Texas if he could be permitted to rescue the remnant of his 
followers from destruction, and remove them beyond the Rio del Norte. A 
treaty to this effect, as I have ah-eady stated, was subsequently entered into in 
due form ; and, in pursuance of its provisions, the Mexicans evacuated Texas, 
and retired beyond the Rio del Norte. This treaty was executed by Santa 
Ana as the government de facto for the time being, and, as such, was bind- 
ing on the Mexican nation. 

Mi: J. Q. Adams. I desire to inquire of the gentleman from Illinois if 



84 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Santa Ana was not a prisoner of war at the time, and in duress when he ex- 
ecuted that treaty. 

Mr. Douglas. Santa Ana was a prisoner and in duress, and so was the en- 
tire government of Mexico, for he was at that time the government de facto, 
clothed with all its functions, civil and military. The government itself was 
a prisoner and in duress. But will it be contended that that circumstance 
rendered the obligation less obligatory ? 

Mr. Adams. It is a strange doctrine that the acts of a prisoner while in 
duress are to be deemed valid after he has recovered his liberty. 

Mr. Douglas. We are at war with Mexico. Our armies will soon march 
into the heart of that country. I trust they will penetrate as far as the cap- 
ital, and capture not only the army, but the government itself in the halls of 
the Montezumas, that we may make them all prisoners of war, and keep them 
in duress until they shall make a treaty of peace and boundary with us, by 
which they shall recognize not only the Rio del Norte, but such other line as 
we shall choose to dictate or accept. Will the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts contend that a treaty made with us under those circumstances would not 
be binding, because, forsooth, the government was a prisoner at that time ? 
How is a conquered nation ever to make peace if the gentleman's doctrine is 
to prevail ? Take the case of an absolute monarchy : the king is captured in 
battle at the head of his army. Both parties may then be willing to settle 
the dispute, but no treaty can be made because the king is in duress, and, of 
course, the victor would not release his royal prisoner until a treaty of peace 
had been executed, lest he might continue hostilities, and, by the fortunes of 
war, triumph in the contest. This doctrine would place all unfortunate bel- 
ligerents in a most deplorable condition. They refuse to make peace before 
defeat, because they hope for victory. They are incompetent to do it after- 
ward, because they are in duress. Surely a defeated nation woidd find itself 
in a lamentable predicament. Too feeble to resist, disarmed, conquered, and 
still incompetent to make a treaty of peace and adjust the matter in dispute 
on such fair and equitable terms as a magnanimous foe might propose, be- 
cause the war of aggression which they had commenced had resulted disas- 
trously, and made them captives. I fear, if the gentlemen on the other side 
succeed in establishing their doctrine, they will soon find their Mexican 
friends in a dilemma truly pitiable. Perhaps, if General Paredes and his 
military government should be reduced to captivity, these gentlemen would 
require* that our armies should retire within our own territory, and set the 
prisoners at liberty, before negotiations for peace should be opened. This 
may be their view of the subject, but I doubt whether it is the view which the 
American government or the American people will feel it their duty to act 
upon. Our crude notions of things might teach us that the city of Mexico 
was a very suitable place for conducting the negotiations. I must, therefore, 
be permitted to adhere to my original position that the treaty of peace and 
boundaries between Santa Ana and the Texan government in May, 1836, 
was binding on the Mexican nation, it having been executed by the govern- 
ment de facto for the time being. 

Mr. Adams. Has not that treaty with Santa Ana been since discarded by 
the Mexican government ? 

Mr. Douglas. I presume it has, for I am not aware of any treaty or com- 
pact which that government ever entered into that she did not afterward 
either violate or repudiate. The history of our treaty stipulations with her 
furnishes ample ground for this presumption. I have not deemed it necessa- 
ry to inquire what particular acts of disavowal, if any, have been since adopt- 
ed by the Mexican government. It is sufficient for my purpose that the 
treaty was entered into by competent authority at the time of its execution. 
The acts of a government de facto are binding on the nation as against for- 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 85 

eign nations, without reference to the mode by which that government was 
established, whether by revolution, usurpation, or rightful and constitutional 
means. 

Mr. Adams. I deny it. I deny the proposition. 

Mr. Douglas. I will not enter into an elaborate discussion of the laws of 
nations on the point with the learned gentleman from Massachusetts. I will 
say, however, that I understand writers on international law to lay down the 
principle as I have stated. Certainly the practice and usages of all civilized 
nations sanction it, of which history furnishes innumerable examples. Does 
the gentleman deny the validity of the acts of the British government in the 
times of Cromwell because it was a mere government de facto, established in 
blood, in violation of the English Constitution ? Many of the most import- 
ant treaties affecting the destiny of Europe were made with the British gov- 
ernment during that period ; and who ever heard of a European sovereign 
denying their obligation or failing to claim the benefits of them ? More re- 
cent and memorable instances may be found in our claims of indemnities 
against France, Naples, and Spain, for injuries which we sustained during 
the French Revolution. We did not permit these countries to exonerate them- 
selves from the obligation to make us compensation upon the pretext that 
Napoleon, Murat, and Joseph Bonaparte were military despots, who had as- 
cended the thrones through blood and violence. We recognized them as the 
heads of those governments de facto, while seated on the thrones of the le- 
gitimate kings of those countries, and subsequently held the nations responsi- 
ble for all their invasions of our rights. Spain, Naples, and France have each 
acknowledged the obligation and granted indemnities. Will the gentleman 
deny the validity of the purchase of Louisiana upon the ground that it was 
made with a usurper, who was afterward taken prisoner and dethroned? 
With as little propriety may he reject Santa Ana's treaty with Texas, and our 
treaties with the presidents and dictators of Mexico, who have successively 
and alternately seized the reins of that government at short intervals, and 
banished or beheaded their predecessors, and changed the forms of govern- 
ment to suit their purposes. In these and all similar cases the usages of the 
civilized world sanction the doctrine for which I contend, that the govern- 
ment de facto, for the time being, is recognized, and the nation held respons- 
ible for its acts, without inquiring into the means by which it was establish- 
ed, or allowing the obligation to be dissolved by subsequent revolutions or 
disavowals. I am not now discussing the question whether the distinctions 
attempted to be established in England on the termination of the Wars of 
the Roses, between the rival houses of Lancaster and York, were well found- 
ed or not. I do not pretend to say whether it is a settled principle of the 
laws of nations that there is such a distinction between governments de facto 
and governments de jure as some gentlemen insist upon. I wish to avoid all 
immaterial issues, for I have had no opportunity for investigation or prepar- 
ation on these points. All I insist upon in this discussion is that the acts of 
the government de facto, for the time being, are binding on the nation in re- 
spect to foreign states. It is immaterial, therefore, whether Mexico has or 
has not disavowed Santa Ana's treaty with Texas. It was executed at the 
time by competent authority. She availed herself of all its benefits. By 
virtue of it she saved the remnant of her army from total annihilation, and 
had her captive dictator restored to liberty. Under it she was permitted to 
remove, in peace and security, all her soldiers, citizens, and property, beyond 
the Rio del Norte. The question is, had she a moral and legal right to re- 
pudiate it after she had enjoyed all its advantages ? 

The gentleman from Massachusetts attempts to apply the legal maxims 
relative to civil contracts to this transaction. Because an individual who 
enters into a contract while in duress has a right to disavow it when restored 



86 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

to his liberty, he can see no reason why Santa Ana could not do the same 
thing. I shall not go into an argument to prove that the rights of a nation, 
in time of war, are not identical with those of a citizen, under the municipal 
laws of his own country, in a state of peace. But if I should admit the just- 
ness of the supposed parallel, I apprehend the gentleman woidd not insist 
upon the right to rescind the contract without placing the parties in statu quo ; 
for it must be borne in mind that Santa Ana was a prisoner according to the 
rules of war, and consequently in lawful custody. Is the gentleman prepared 
to show that the Mexican government ever proposed to rescind the treaty, and 
place the parties in the same relative position they occupied on the day of its 
execution? Did they ever offer to send Santa Ana and his defeated army 
back to San Jacinto, to remain as General Houston's prisoners until the Texan 
government should dispose of them according to its discretion, under the laws 
of nations ? But I must return from this digression to the main point of my 
argument. I was proceeding with my proof, when these interruptions com- 
menced, to show that the Rio del Norte was the boundary between Texas and 
Mexico, and has been so claimed on the one side and recognized on the other 
ever since the battle of San Jacinto. I have already referred to the fact that 
the country west of the Nueces had her soldiers in the Texan arcny during 
the campaigns of 1835 and 1836, and that the treaty of peace and independ- 
ence between Santa Ana and the Texan government recognized the Eio del 
Norte as the boundary. I have also referred to the fact that the Mexican 
army was removed from Texas, in pursuance of that treaty, to the west bank 
of that stream. I am informed by high authority that General Filisola re- 
ceived instructions from the authorities in Mexico, who were exercising the 
functions of government in Santa Ana's absence, to enter into any arrange- 
ment with the Texan government which should be necessary to save the 
Mexican army from destruction, and secure its safe retreat from that coun- 
try ; and that, in pursuance of those instructions, he did ratify Santa Ana's 
treaty previous to marching the army beyond the Rio del Norte. My friend 
from Mississippi, before me (Mr. Davis), who has investigated the subject, as- 
sures me that such is the fact. My own recollection accords with his state- 
ment in this respect. These facts clearly show that Mexico, at that time, re- 
garded the revolution as successful as far as the Rio del Norte, and conse- 
quently that the river must necessarily become the boundary whenever the in- 
dependence of the new republic should be firmly established. Subsequent 
transactions prove that the two countries have ever since acted on the same 
supposition. Texas immediately proceeded to form a Constitution and estab- 
lish a permanent government. The country between the Nueces and the Rio 
del Norte was represented in the convention which formed her Constitution in 
1838. James Powers, an actual resident of the territory now in dispute, was 
elected a delegate by the people residing there, and participated in the pro- 
ceedings of the convention as one of its members. The first Congress which 
assembled under the Constitution proceeded to define the boundaries of the 
republic, to establish courts of jurisdiction, and the exercise of all the powers 
of sovereignty over the whole territory. One of the first acts of that Congress 
declares the Rio del Norte, from its mouth to its source, to be the boundary 
between Texas and Mexico, and the others provide for the exercise of juris- 
diction. Counties were established, reaching across the Nueces, and even to 
the Rio del Norte, as fast as the tide of emigration advanced in that direc- 
tion. Corpus Christi, Point Isabel, and General Taylor's camp, opposite 
Mata moras, are all within the county of San Patricio, in the State of Texas, 
according to our recent maps. That same county, from the day of its for- 
mation, constituted a portion of one of the congressional districts, and also of 
a senatorial district in the Republic of Texas ; it now forms a portion, if not. 
the whole, of a representative district, and also a senatorial district, for the 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 87 

election of representatives and senators to the Texan Legislature, as well as 
a congressional district for the election of a representative to the Congress 
of the United States. Colonel Kinney, who emigrated from my own state, 
has resided in that country, between the Nueces and the Rio del Norte, for 
many years ; has represented it in the Congress of the Republic of Texas, 
also in the convention which formed the Constitution of the State of Texas, 
and now represents it in the Texan Senate. I know not what stronger evi- 
dence could be desired that the country in question was, in fact, a portion of 
the Republic of Texas, and, as a consequence, is now a portion of the United 
States. If an express acknowledgment by Mexico of the Rio del Norte as the 
boundary, is deemed essential, and the recognition of that fact in Santa Ana's 
treaty, and subsequently by Filisola, is not considered sufficient, I will en- 
deavor to furnish further and more recent evidence, which, I trust, will be 
satisfactory on that point. I have not the papers to which I shall refer be- 
fore me at this moment, but they are of such general notoriety that they can 
not fail to be within the recollection of the members of the House generally. 
It will be remembered that when we were discussing the propriety and expe- 
diency of the annexation of Texas some two years ago, much was said about 
an armistice entered into between Mexico and Texas for the suspension of 
hostilities for a limited period. Well, that armistice was agreed to by the 
two governments, and in the proclamation announcing the fact by the Mexi- 
can government, the Mexican forces were required to retire from the terri- 
tory of Texas to the west side of the Rio del Norte. This proclamation was 
issued, as near as I recollect, in 1843 or 1844, just before the treaty of annex- 
ation was signed by President Tyler, and at a period when Mexico had had 
sufficient time to recover from the dizziness of the shock at San Jacinto, and 
to ascertain to what extent the revolution had been successful, and where the 
true boundary was. She was not a prisoner of war, nor in duress, at the time 
she issued this proclamation. It was her own deliberate act (so far as delib- 
eration ever attends her action), done of her own volition. In that proclama- 
tion she clearly recognizes the Rio del Norte as the boundary, and that, too, 
in view of a treaty of peace, by which the independence of Texas was to be 
again acknowledged. 

Mr. Adams. I wish to ask the gentleman from Illinois if the last Congress 
did not pass an act regulating trade and commerce to the foreign province of 
Santa Fe ? 

Mr. Douglas. I believe the last Congress did pass an act upon that sub- 
ject, and I will remind the gentleman that the jiresent Congress has passed 
an act extending the revenue laws of the United States over the country be- 
tween the Rio del Norte and the Nueces, and providing for the appointment 
of custom-house officers to reside there. As near as I recollect, the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts and myself voted for both of those acts. The only 
difference between us, in this respect, was, that he, being a little more zealous 
than myself, made a speech for the last one — for the act extending our laws 
over and taking legal possession of the very country where General Taylor's 
army is now encamped, and which he now asserts to belong to Mexico. That 
act passed this Congress unanimously at the present session, taking legal pos- 
session of the whole country in dispute, and of course making it the sworn 
duty of the President to see its provisions faithfully executed. In the name 
of truth and justice, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, and his follow- 
ers in this crusade, how they can justify it to their consciences to denounce 
the President for sending the army to protect the lives of our citizens there, 
and defend the country from invasion, after they had voted to take legal pos- 
session by the extension of our laws ? They had asserted our right to the 
country by a solemn act of Congress ; had erected it into a collection dis- 
trict, and the Constitution required the President to appoint the officers, and 



88 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

see the laws faithfully executed. He had done so ; and for this simple discharge 
of a duty enjoined upon him by a law for which they voted, he is assailed, in 
the coarsest terms known to our language, as having committed an act which 
is unholy, unrighteous, and damnable ! But I feel it due to the venerable 
gentleman from Massachusetts to respond more particularly to his inquiry in 
regard to the act of the last Congress regulating commerce and trade to Santa 
Fe. I do not now recollect its exact provisions, nor is it important, inas- 
much as that act was passed before Texas was annexed to this Union. Of 
course Santa Fe was foreign to us at that time, whether it belonged to Texas 
or Mexico. The object of that act was to regulate the trade across our west- 
ern frontier between us and foreign countries. Texas was then foreign to us, 
but is no longer so since her annexation and admission into the Union. Mr. 
Chairman, I believe I have now said all that I intended for the purpose of 
showing that the Rio del Norte was the western boundary of the Republic of 
Texas. How far I have succeeded in establishing the position, I leave to the 
House and the country to determine. If that was the boundary of the Re- 
public of Texas, it has, of course, become the boundary of the United States 
by virtue of the acts of annexation and admission into the Union. I will not 
say that I have demonstrated the question as satisfactorily as the distinguish- 
ed gentleman from Massachusetts did in 1819, but I will say that I think I 
am safe in adopting the sentiment which he then expressed — that our title to 
the Rio del Norte is as clear as to the island of New Orleans. 

Mr. Adams. I never said that our title was good to the Rio del Norte from 
its mouth to its source. 

Mr. Douglas. I know nothing of the gentleman's mental reservations. If 
he means, by his denial, to place the whole emphasis on the qualification that 
he did not claim that river as the boundary "from its mouth to its source," I 
shall not dispute with him on that point. But if he wishes to be understood 
as denying that he ever claimed the Rio del Norte, in general terms, as our 
boundary under the Louisiana treaty, I can furnish him with an official docu- 
ment, over his own signature, which he will find very embarrassing and ex- 
ceedingly difficult to explain. I allude to his famous dispatch as secretary 
of state, in 1819, to Don Onis, the Spanish minister. I am not certain that 
I can prove his handwriting, for the copy I have in my possession I find 
printed in the American State Papers, published by order of Congress. In 
that paper he not only claimed the Rio del Norte as our boundary, but he 
demonstrated the validity of the claim by a train of facts and arguments which 
rivet conviction on every impartial mind, and defy refutation. 

Mr. Adams. I wrote that dispatch as secretary of state, and endeavored 
to make out the best case I could for my own country, as it was my duty ; 
but I utterly deny that I claimed the Rio del Norte as our boundary in its full 
extent. I only claimed it a short distance up the river, and then diverged 
northward some distance from the stream. 

Mr. Douglas. Will the gentleman specify the point at which his line left 
the river ? 

Mr. Adams. I never designated the point. 

Mr. Douglas. Was it above Matamoras? 

Mr. Adams. I never specified any particular place. 

Mr. Douglas. I am well aware that the gentleman never specified any point 
of departure for his northward line, which, he now informs us, was to run a 
part of the way on the east side of that river ; for he claimed the river as the 
boundary in general terms, without any qualification. But his present ad- 
mission is sufficient for my purposes, if he will only specify the point from 
which he then understood or now understands that his line was to have di- 
verged from the river. I have heard of this line before, and know with rea- 
sonable certainty its point of departure. It followed the river to a place near 



THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND MEXICAN WAR. 89 

the highlands-^-certainly more than one hundred miles above Matamoras ; con- 
sequently, if we adopt that line as our present boundary, it will give us Point 
Isabel and General Taylor's camp opposite Matamoras, and every inch of 
ground upon which an American soldier has ever placed his foot since the 
annexation of Texas to the Union. Hence my solicitude to extract an an- 
swer from the venerable gentleman to my interrogatory whether his line fol- 
lowed the river any distance above Matamoras, and hence, I apprehend, the 
cause of my failure to procure a response to that question. If he had re- 
sponded to my inquiry, his answer would have furnished a triumphant .refu- 
tation of all the charges which lie and his friends have made against the Presi- 
dent for ordering the army of occupation to its present position. I am not 
now to be diverted from the real point in controversy by a discussion of the 
question whether the Eio del Norte was the boundary to its source. My 
present object is to repel the calumnies which have been urged against our 
government, to place our country in the right and the enemy in the wrong, 
before the civilized world, according to the truth and justice of the case. I 
have exposed these calumnies by reference to the acts and admissions of our 
accusers, by which they have asserted our title to the full extent that we have 
taken possession. I have shown that Texas always claimed the Rio del Norte 
as her boundary during the existence of the republic, and that Mexico on 
several occasions recognized it as such in the most direct and solemn manner. 
The President ordered the army no farther than Congress had extended our 
laws. In view of these facts, I leave it to the candor of every honest man 
whether the executive did not do his duty, and nothing but his duty, when 
he ordered the army to the Rio del Norte. Should he have folded his arms, 
and allowed our citizens to be murdered and our territory invaded with im- 
punity ? have we not forborne to act, either offensively or defensively, until 
our forbearance is construed into cowardice, and is exciting contempt from 
those toward whom we have exercised our magnanimity ? We have a long 
list of grievances, a long catalogue of wrongs to be avenged. Tho war has 
commenced; blood has been shed; our territory invaded; all by the act of 
the cuemy. 

I had hoped and trusted that there would be no anti-war party after war was 
declared. In this I have been sadly disappointed. I have been particularly 
mortified to see one with whom I have acted on the Oregon question, who 
was ready to plunge the country into immediate war, if necessary, to main- 
tain the rights and honor of the country in that direction, now arraying him- 
self on the side of the enemy when our country is invaded by another portion 
of the Union. To me, our country and all its parts are one and indivisible. 
I would rally under her standard in the defense of one portion as soon as an- 
other — the South as soon as the North; for Texas as soon as Oregon. And 
I will here do my Southern friends the justice to say that I firmly believe, 
and never doubted that, if war had arisen out of the Oregon question, when 
once declared, they would have been found shoulder to shoulder with me as 
firmly as I shall be with them in this Mexican war. 

Mr. Adams. I thought I understood the gentleman some time ago, while 
standing on 54° 40', to tell his Southern friends that he wanted no dodging 
on the Oregon question. 

Mr. Douglas. I did stand on 54° 40' ; I stand there now, and never in- 
tend, by any act of mine, to surrender the position. I am as ready and will- 
ing to fight for 54° 40' as for the Rio del Norte. My patriotism is not of that 
kind which would induce me to go to war to enlarge one section of the Union 
out of mere hatred and vengeance toward the other. I have no personal or 
political griefs resulting from the past to embitter my feelings and inflame 
my resentment toward any section of our country. I know no sections, no 
divisions. I did complain of a few of my Southern friends on the Oregon 
question ; did tell them that I wished to see no dodging ; endeavored to rally 



90 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

them on 54° 40' as our fighting line, regardless of consequences, war or no 
war. But, while they declined to assume this position in a time of peace, they 
unanimously avowed their determination to stand by the country the moment 
war was declared. But, since the gentleman from Massachusetts has dragged 
the Oregon question into this debate, I wish to call his attention to one of his 
wise sayings on that subject, and see if he is not willing to apply it to Texas 
as well as Oregon, to Mexico as well as Great Britain. He recalled to the 
mind of the House that passage of history in which the great Frederick took 
military possession of Silesia, and immediately proposed to settle the question 
of title and boundaries by negotiation. During the Oregon debate he avow- 
ed himself in favor of Frederick's plan for the settlement of that question, 
" Take possession first, and negotiate afterward." I desire to know why the 
gentleman is not willing to apply this principle to the country on the Rio del 
Norte as well as Oregon ? According to his own showing, that is precisely 
what President Polk has done. He has taken possession, and proposed to 
negotiate. In this respect the President has adopted the advice of the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts, and followed the example of the great Frederick. 
The only difference in the two cases is that the President was maintaining a 
legal possession, which Congi-ess had previously taken by the extension of 
our laws. For this he is also abused. He is condemned alike for using the 
sword and the olive branch. His enemies object to his efforts for amicable 
adjustment as well as to the movements of the army. All is wrong in their 
eyes. Their country is always wrong, and its enemies right. It has ever 
been so. It was so in the last war with Great Britain. Then it was unbe- 
coming a moral and religious people to rejoice at the success of American 
arms. We were wrong, in their estimation, in the French Indemnity case, 
in the Florida war, in all the Indian wars, and now in the Mexican war. 
I despair of ever seeing my country again in the right, if they are to be the 
oracles. 

On the 23d of February, 1848, President Pierce communi- 
cated to the Senate the treaty of peace with Mexico, negotiated 
at Guadalupe Hidalgo by N. P. Trist, calling attention to cer- 
tain provisions in it which were highly objectionable. The 
debate on this treaty continued until March 10, when, it hav- 
ing been amended, the vote was taken, " Will the Senate ad- 
vise and consent to the ratification of the treaty in the form of 
this resolution ?" and the vote stood : 

Teas— Ashley, Atherton, Bagby, Bell, Bradbury, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, 
Cameron, Cass, Clarke, Crittenden, Davis of Massachusetts, Davis of Missis- 
sippi, Davton, Dickinson, Dix, Downs, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hanne- 
gan, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Geor- 
gia, Mangum, Mason, Miller, Moor, Niles, Rusk, Sevier, Sturgeon, Turney, 
Underwood, Yulee — 38. 

Nays— Allen of Ohio, Atchison of Missouri, Badger of North Carolina, 
Baldwin of Connecticut, Benton of Missouri, Berrien of Georgia, Breese of 
Illinois, Corwin of Ohio, Douglas of Illinois, Lewis of Alabama, Spruance 
of Delaware, Upham of Vermont, Webster of Massachusetts, Westcott of 
Florida— 14. Two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the treaty was 
ratified. 

The objections to the treaty on the part of Mr. Douglas are 
stated in the extracts from his speeches in the various part 
of this volume. 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 91 



CHAPTER VI. 

POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 

Since the advent of Mr. Douglas upon the floors of Con- 
gress, he has always taken an active and decided part in the 
discussions upon the proper policy to be adopted and main- 
tained by the United States with respect to foreign govern- 
ments, and also respecting foreign possessions and foreign 
domination upon the American continent. While he has al- 
ways been a strenuous defender of the Monroe doctrine, and 
a zealous advocate of its rigid maintenance on all occasions by 
the United States, he has never given his approval to any of 
the resolutions or propositions which, from time to time, have 
been introduced into Congress, with a view of having a declar- 
ation of what this government would or would not do under 
certain circumstances. His theory is that the declaration by 
Mr. Monroe was a formal notice to the world that thenceforth 
there was to be no new establishment of power or acquisition 
of territory on this continent by any European nation. By 
that declaration he is willing to stand. It is broad, explicit, 
and covers the whole subject. As to all other questions, he 
is for leaving the United States unfettered by declarations, 
pledges, or treaty stipulations. He is opposed to any agree- 
ment between the United States and any European power by 
which the United States will be bound to do or not to do cer- 
tain things respecting the future of any part of this continent. 
He is for leaving the government perfectly free to act when 
the occasion arises, just as the circumstances and interests of 
the country shall at the time require. 

When Mr. Douglas entered Congress the Oregon boundary 
question was causing considerable agitation. He had dis- 
cussed the subject often at home in Illinois. It was no new 
subject for him. He at once entered largely into it. As the 
whole controversy has long since been finally disposed of by 
treaty, it is unnecessary to quote in a work of this kind his 
speeches on the question. They were many and able, and dis- 
played a research for which those who were strangers to him 



92 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

were reluctant to give him credit. He was for 54° 40', and 
was the last man to yield in the memorable congressional 
struggle that ensued some years later. He had declared in 
his hrst sj)eech his matured and deliberate opinion that the 
American title was clear and indisputable, and that he never 
would, now or hereafter, yield up an inch of Oregon to Great 
Britain or any other government. He was a warm supporter of 
the proposition of giving the notice required by existing treaty 
for the termination of the joint occupation of the disputed ter- 
ritory. He advocated the immediate organization of a terri- 
torial government for Oregon, and its protection by an ample 
military force. If these events, if this just enforcement of 
American rights were to lead to a war with Great Britain, he 
urged the strong necessity for putting the country in a state 
of defense. He reviewed, with strong and emphatic denuncia- 
tions, the incessant progress made by Great Britain in ex- 
tending and maintaining dominion on this continent. He de- 
scribed her power at the north and on the lakes ; her posses- 
sions and depots in the Atlantic, and also on the Pacific; 
pointed out her intrigues to obtain Texas on the southwest — 
all these things he presented with great force and power. 

On the 3d of June, 1844, he made & speech in the House 
contrasting the principles, and the opinions upon all pending 
national questions, of Messrs. Clay and Polk. This speech was 
made in reply to one delivered by Colonel Hardin, of Illinois ; 
it was such an able exposition of Democratic principles that 
it was the campaign speech of the session, was printed in im- 
mense numbers, and was sent all over the Union. 

THE OREGON BOUNDARY. 

The following extracts from speeches delivered by him on 
the Oregon question of that day will serve to illustrate his 
general views : 

' ' It therefore becomes us to put this nation in a state of defense ; and, 
when we are told that this will lead to war, all I have to say is this, violate 
no treaty stipulations, nor any principle of the law of nations ; preserve the 
honor and integrity of the country, but, at the same time, assert our right 
to the last inch, and then, if war comes, let it come. We may regret the 
necessity which produced it, but when it does come, I would administer to 
our citizens Hannibal's oath of eternal enmity, and not terminate the war 
until the question was settled forever. I would blot out the lines on the map 
which now mark our national boundaries on this continent, and make the 
area of liberty as broad as the continent itself. I would not suffer petty rival 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 93 

republics to grow up here, engendering jealousy of each other, and interfering 
with each other's domestic affairs, and continually endangering their peace. 
I do not wish to go beyond the great ocean — beyond those boundaries which 
the God of nature has marked out, I would limit myself only by that bound- 
ary which is so clearly defined by nature." 

Again : 

"Our federal system is admirably adapted to the whole continent; and, 
while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in 
any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal and honor- 
able means to drive Great Britain and the last vestiges of royal authority 
from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the republic 
from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and have 
no more disputes about boundaries, or 'red lines' upon the maps." 

The Baltimore Convention, which in June, 1844, nominated 
Mr. Polk for the presidency, had passed the following resolu- 
tion: 

"Resolved, That our title to the whole of the territory of Oregon is clear 
and unquestionable ; that no portion of the same should be ceded to En- 
gland or any other power ; and that the inoccupation of Oregon, and the 
reannexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period, are great American 
measures, which this convention recommends to the ardent support of the 
Democracy of the Union." 

It subsequently became a subject of grave discussion and of 
warm controversy whether that part of this resolution relating 
to Oregon was or was not a part of the Democratic platform 
to which the party was committed. In the discussion upon 
that point, Mr. Douglas, while conceding to President Polk all 
possible patriotism, and admitting that the President could not 
have been aware, on his accession to the presidency, that the 
United States had at one time offered to compromise on 49°, 
contended, nevertheless, that all Democrats were bound by the 
resolution of the Baltimore Convention. 

The history of the Oregon boundary question is one of the 
most interesting in the annals of our government. The limits 
of this work will not permit it to be given in full here, but its 
progress and final settlement may be understood from the fol- 
lowing brief sketch : 

The proposition to give the notice of the termination of the 
joint occupancy of the disputed territory was renewed during 
the first Congress of which Mr. Douglas was a member, and 
failed. In the twenty -ninth Congress it was again urged. 
This was the first Congress following Mr. Polk's inauguration. 
In his inaugural address the President had used these memo- 
rable words : 



94 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

" Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and 
maintain, by all constitutional means, the right of the United 
States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the 
Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is 
1 clear and unquestionable,' and already are our people prepar- 
ing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and 
children." 

By the 3d article of the treaty of October, 1818, it had been 
agreed that the country in dispute should be open and free for 
ten years to the citizens of both countries, without prejudice to 
the claims of either country. Several subsequent efforts were 
made to settle the matter by negotiation, but without success. 
In 1827 a convention was made, by which it was agreed to con- 
tinue in force the existing stipulation for a joint occupancy, 
with a proviso that after October, 1828, either of the contract- 
ing parties, on giving due notice of twelve months to the other 
contracting party, might annul and abrogate this last treaty, 
which should, from and after the expiration of the twelve 
months' notice, be abrogated and annulled. The United States 
had, hi all the negotiations, offered to fix the boundary upon 
the parallel of 49° north latitude, but the offer had been reject- 
ed. Great Britain offered the boundary of 49° to its intersec- 
tion with the northeastern branch of the Columbia River, and 
then with the channel of said river to the ocean. This had 
been rejected, for obvious reasons, by the United States. In 
1843 the negotiations had been renewed ; and in August, 1844, 
pending the presidential contest in which Mr. Polk was a can- 
didate, Great Britain, through her minister at Washington, 
made an offer having for its main feature the line of 49°. This 
was rejected by Mr. Tyler. Upon Mr. Polk's entering the of- 
fice of President, he found that the United States, from 1818 
up to a very recent period, had offered to accept the parallel 
of 49°, the difference between the two governments being upon 
questions involving the joint right of navigation of the Colum- 
bia River, free ports upon Vancouver's Island, and other points 
of detail. Mr. Polk again offered as a compromise the line of 
49°, omitting what had been tendered by his predecessors — 
the free navigation of the Columbia River south of that line. 
He was, he said, unwilling to concede to Great Britain the free 
navigation of any river in the United States. The British min- 
ister rejected the offer, and Mr. Polk then asserted the Amer- 



POLICY WITH FOEEIGN NATIONS. 95 

ican claim to the whole territory. He recommended that the 
notice be given for the termination of the existing convention. 

In December, 1 845, Mr. Douglas, being then chairman of the 
Committee on Territories, reported " a bill to protect the rights 
of American settlers in the Territory of Oregon until the term- 
ination of the joint occupancy of the same." 

In January, 1846, the Committee on Foreign Relations in 
the House reported a joint resolution directing the President 
forthwith to give the twelve months' notice for the abrogation 
of the treaty of 1827. 

Upon this resolution a protracted debate took place. Mr. 
Douglas advocated its passage. He took the high ground 
that the American title to the whole territory was indisputa- 
ble, and he was for resuming its exclusive occupancy. He 
denied that such a course would afford cause for Avar ; but if 
it was used as a pretext for Avar by Great Britain, he would 
not shrink from the contest. He denied that Great Britain 
had the slightest legal claim to any part of the northwestern 
coast, and, having no just or legal claim, he was for excluding 
her entirely from that coast. The records of Congress bear 
ample evidence of the interest felt by the country upon the 
question ; and in the broad pages which contain the speeches, 
there are none that will better repay the time given to their 
perusal than those which contain the speeches of Mr. Douglas. 

The excitement following these measures, and up to the day 
of the final settlement of the question in Congress, was intense, 
and the country was no less agitated. Peace or war, the in- 
tegrity of the national domain or its severance, were the themes 
of daily and angry discussions in all parts of the country. 
State conA r entions and state Legislatures took action upon the 
subject, and throughout the land the declaration of "fifty-four 
forty or fight" was growing into popular faA^or, and was fast 
becoming an expression of national sentiment. In the second 
week of February, the House, by resolution, closed the debate 
in Committee of the Whole. In the mean time, while these 
propositions were pending before the House, the British min- 
ister, on the 27th of December, 1845, and again on January 
16, 1846, proposed to the American government, 1st, to sub- 
mit the Avhole question of an equitable division of Oregon ter- 
ritory to the arbitration of some friendly sovereign or state ; 
and, 2d, to refer the question of title in either of the two pow- 



96 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ers to the whole territory ; the arbitrator, in case he found the 
title to the whole to be in neither, to assign to each such por- 
tions as he might think it entitled. These propositions were 
promptly rejected by Mr. Polk, who declined the first proposi- 
tion (among other reasons) because he could not admit Great 
Britain to have any claim to any portion, and, secondly, because 
he did not think the territorial rights of the nation a proper 
subject for arbitration. He could not consent to any measure 
which would withdraw our title from the control of the gov- 
ernment and people of the United States, and place it within 
the discretion of any arbitrator, no matter how intelligent and 
respectable. 

The debate closed at three P.M., Mr. Darragh having made 
the last speech, and then ensued a scene which is graphically 
described in the Congressional Globe. The question pending 
was on the joint resolution reported by the Committee on For- 
eign Relations, directing that the President forthwith give the 
notice. The first amendment proposed was to strike out the 
word "forthwith," which was agreed to without a division. 
The next amendment proposed was to authorize the President 
to give the notice whenever, in his judgment, the public inter- 
est required it. This was rejected; ayes 56, noes 136. 

Mr. Dromgoole submitted a substitute for the resolution 
reported by the committee. It authorized the President to 
give the notice, but declared that nothing in such action was 
to be taken as interfering with negotiations for an amicable 
settlement of the controversy. Under the rules of the House, 
both the original proposition and the proj)osed substitute were 
open for amendment. 

Mr. Dargan moved an amendment, providing, 1st, that the 
existing differences between the two governments were still 
the subject of honorable negotiation and compromise, and 
should be so adjusted ; and, 2d, that the boundary-line between 
the Canadas and the United States should be extended due 
west to the coast south of Frazer's River, and thence through 
the centre of the Straits of Fuca to the Pacific, giving to the 
United States all the territory south, and Great Britain all 
lying north of that line. The first clause was rejected — ayes 
96, noes 102 ; and the second clause by an overwhelming vote. 

Mr. J. A. Rockwell moved an amendment declaring that, as 
the President had refused to accept an offer to refer the mat- 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 97 

ter to arbitration, it was the sense of the House that the Presi- 
dent should be permitted, upon his own responsibility, to take 
such further measures as he might deem expedient. This was 
rejected. 

Mr. J. A. Black offered as an amendment for the substitute 
a preamble and resolution, that, with a view of fixing a limit 
beyond which the settlement of the question could not be de- 
layed, and at the same time affording every possible opportu- 
nity for a just and final settlement, the President give the 
twelve months' notice, etc. Rejected. 

Mr. Ramsey moved to amend by striking out all after the 
word " resolved," and insert, 

"That the Oregon question is no longer a subject of nego- 
tiation or compromise." 

This was the ultimate ground on the subject, and the House 
voted — ayes 10, noes 146. The proceedings having taken 
place in Committee of the Whole, and the vote by tellers, no rec- 
ord is preserved of the names of members voting on this or 
any other of the propositions ; but Mr. Wheeler, in his History 
of Congress, writing from personal knowledge, gives as the 
names of the ten who voted in the affirmative the following: 



Alexander Ramsey, of Pennsylvania. 
Archibald Yell, of Arkansas. 
William Sawyer, of Ohio. 
Cornelius Darragh, of Pennsylvania. 
F. G. M'Connell, of Alabama. 



Joseph B. Hoge, of Illinois. 
Robert Smith, " 

Stephen A. Douglas, " 
J. A. M 'demand, " 
John Wentworth, " 



Finally, after the rejection of a large number of amendments, 
the committee, by a vote of ayes 110, noes 93, adopted the fol- 
lowing: " Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives, etc., that the President of the United States cause notice 
to be given to the government of Great Britain that the con- 
vention between the United States of America and Great Brit- 
ain concerning the territory on the northwest coast of Amer- 
ica, west of the Stony or Rocky Mountains, of the sixth day 
of August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven, sign- 
ed at London, shall be annulled and abrogated twelve months 
after giving said notice. 

"Resolved, That nothing herein contained is intended to in- 
terfere with the right and discretion of the proper authorities 
of the two contracting parties to renew or pursue negotiations 
for an amicable settlement of the controversy respecting the 
Oregon Territory." 

E 



98 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The committee rose and reported the resolution to the 
House. The House, by a vote of yeas 163, nays 54, ordered 
it to be engrossed, and then, without a division, the resolution 
passed. The Senate debated this resolution from February 
till the 16th of April, when it amended it by substituting an- 
other resolution for it. The House refused to concur ; a com- 
mittee of conference was appointed, and they reported a reso- 
lution which was finally agreed to by both houses. It author- 
ized the President, in his discretion, to give the notice, which 
authority he promptly exercised. It is known that while the 
Senate and House were thus engaged, an active correspondence 
was going on between the representatives of the two govern- 
ments, which finally ended in a formal offer, in the month of 
June, by the British government for a settlement of the bound- 
ary-Hue upon the parallel of 49°. As the rejection of that prop- 
osition involved possibly the issue of peace or war, the Presi- 
dent, imitating the example set by Washington in several cases, 
submitted the offer to the Senate for their advice upon it. 
The Senate, by a vote of 38 to 12, advised the President to ac- 
cept the proposal of the British government. On the 16th of 
June the President communicated the treaty to the Senate ; 
and on the 18th, the Senate, by a vote of yeas 41, nays 14, ad- 
vised and consented to the ratification of the same. Thus end- 
ed the exciting Oregon boundary question, in the discussions 
upon which Mr. Douglas earned an enviable reputation both 
as an orator and as a statesman. 

The annexation of Texas and the Mexican Avar, though both 
questions bearing directly upon the foreign policy of the gov- 
ernment of the United States, are subjects so intimately con- 
nected, and forming a distinct chapter of the history of the 
country at the time, will be found under a separate head. 

MONROE DOCTRINE. CLATTON-BULWER TREATY. 

The next great question affecting the policy of the United 
States respecting the management of its relations with foreign 
governments was the Treaty of Washington, more familiarly 
known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. The proceedings 
of the Senate (of which Mr. Douglas was then a member) upon 
this treaty were, of course, secret, and the record since made 
public presents the statement of the votes of senators, and the 
resolutions of the Senate. Involved in this treaty was the pol- 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 99 

icy of the United States respecting the states of Central Amer- 
ica, and the enforcement of what is known historically as the 
Monroe Doctrine. 

In March, 1849, General Taylor succeeded Mr. Polk in the 
presidency. The Hon. John M. Clayton succeeded Mr. Bu- 
chanan as secretary of state. During the summer and winter 
following the administration undertook to establish some fixed 
relations respecting affairs in Central America. The result 
was the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. This convention was 
communicated to the Senate by a special message on the 2 2d 
of April, 1850. On the 22d of May following it was ratified 
by that body by the following vote : 

Yeas — F. Badger of North Carolina, Baldwin of Connecticut, Bell of 
Tennessee, Berrien of Georgia, Butler of South Carolina, Cass of Michigan, 
Chase of Ohio, Clarke of Rhode Island, Clay of Kentucky, Cooper of Pennsyl- 
vania, Corwin of Ohio, Davis of Massachusetts, Dawson of Georgia, Dayton 
of New Jersey, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Downs of Louisiana, 
Felch of Michigan, Foote of Mississippi, Green of Rhode Island, Hale of New 
Hampshire, Houston of Texas, Hunter of Virginia, Jones of Iowa, King of 
Alabama, Mangum of North Carolina, Mason-^of Virginia, Miller of New 
Jersey, Morton of Florida, Norris of New Hampshire, Pearce of Maryland, 
Pratt of Maryland, Sebastian of Arkansas^ Seward of New York, Shields of 
Illinois, Smith of Connecticut, Soule of Louisiana, Spruance of Delaware, 
Sturgeon of Pennsylvania, Underwood of Kentucky, Wales of Delaware, 
and Webster of Massachusetts — 42. 

Nays — Atchison of Missouri, Borland of Arkansas, Bright of Indiana, 
Clemens of Alabama, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson of New York, Douglas 
of Illinois, Turney of Tennessee, Walker of Wisconsin, Whitcomb of Indiana, 
and Yulee of Florida— 11. 

The very interesting debates were not published, though it 
was well known at the time that Mr. Douglas had taken an 
active part in opposition to the ratification of the treaty. 

At the session of 1852-3, General Cass called the attention 
of the Senate to certain alleged misunderstandings between 
the two governments respecting the meaning of certain stipu- 
lations in the treaty. A debate of deep interest sprung up, 
and for several days the entire subject of the treaty was dis- 
cussed. Mr. Clayton was then at his residence in Delaware. 
So deeply did he consider himself involved in the matters agi- 
tated before the Senate, that he addressed a long letter by tele- 
graph to the National Intelligencer. The Legislature of Dela- 
ware shortly after elected him to a seat in the Senate. On 
the 3d of March Congress adjourned ; but, as is usual upon 
the incoming of a new administration, the retiring President 
called a special session of the Senate to consider such executive 



100 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

business as might be laid before thein. Mr. Clayton took his 
seat at this special session, and, by way of a resolution calling 
for information, he renewed the controversy. Upon this res- 
olution, the whole subject of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and 
Central American affairs was discussed in a debate which was 
protracted until late in April. As Mr. Douglas bore a con- 
spicuous part in the debate in February, as well as at the spe- 
cial session, his speeches on these occasions are quoted from 
largely, as presenting in a clear and comprehensive form his 
views and opinions upon the important subjects embraced in 
the debates. 

On the 14th of February, in the Senate, Mr. Douglas said: 

Thirty years ago, Mr. Monroe, in his message to Congress, made a mem- 
orable declaration with respect to European colonization upon this continent. 
That declaration has ever since been a favorite subject of eulogism with or- 
ators, politicians, and statesmen. Recently it has assumed the dignified ap- 
pellation of the '■''Monroe doctrine" It seems to be the part of patriotism 
for all to profess that doctrine, while our government has scarcely ever failed 
to repudiate it practically whenever an opportunity for its observance has 
been presented. The Oregon treaty is a noted case in point. Prior to that 
convention there was no British colony on this continent west of the Rocky 
Mountains. The Hudson's Bay Company was confined by its charter to the 
shores of the bay, and to the streams flowing into it, and to the country 
drained by them. The western boundary of Canada was hundreds of miles 
distant; and there was no European colony to be found in all that region 
on the Pacific coast stretching from California to the Russian possessions. 
We had a treaty of non-occupancy with Great Britain, by the provisions of 
which neither party was to be permitted to colonize or assume dominion over 
any portion of that territory. We abrogated that treaty of non-occupancy, 
and then entered into a convention, by the terms of which the country in 
question was divided into two nearly equal parts, by the parallel of the forty- 
ninth degree of latitude, and all on the north confirmed to Great Britain, 
and that on the south to the United States. By that treaty Great Britain 
consented that we might establish territories and states south of the forty- 
ninth parallel, and the United States consented that Great Britain might, to 
the north of that parallel, establish new European colonies, in open and fla- 
grant violation of the Monroe doctrine. It is unnecessary for me to remind 
the country, and especially my own constituents, with what energy and em- 
phasis I protested against that convention, upon the ground that it carried 
with it the undisguised repudiation of the Monroe declaration, and the con- 
sent of this republic that new British colonies might be established on that 
portion of the North American continent where none existed before. 

Again : as late as 1850 a convention was entered into between the govern- 
ment of the United States and Great Britain, called the Clayton and Bul- 
wer treaty, every article and provision of which is predicated upon a practical 
negation and repudiation of what is known as the Monroe doctrine, as I 
shall conclusively establish before I close these remarks. Since the ratifica- 
tion of that treaty and in defiance of its express stipulations, as well as of 
the Monroe declaration, Great Britain has planted a new colony in Central 
America, known as the colony of the Bay Islands. In view of this fact, and 
with the colony of the Bay Islands in his mind's eye, the venerable senator 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 101 

from Michigan lays upon the table of the Senate, and asks us to affirm by 
our votes, a resolution in which it is declared that "while existing rights 

SHOULD BE RESPECTED, AND WILL BE BY THE UNITED STATES," the Amer- 
ican continents "are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future 
colonization by any European power," and "that no future European colony 
or dominion shall, icith their consent, be planted or established on any part of the 
North American continent." 

Now, sir, before I vote for this resolution, I desire to understand, with clear- 
ness and precision, its purport and meaning. Existing rights are to be re- 
spected ! What is to be the construction of this clause ? Is it that all colo- 
nies established in America by European powers prior to the passage of this 
resolution are to be respected by the United States as "existing rights?" 
Is this resolution to be understood as a formal and official declaration, by the 
Congress of the United States, of our acquiescence in the seizure of the isl- 
ands in the Bay of Honduras, and the erection of them into a new British 
colony ? When, in connection with this clause respecting "existing rights," 
we take into consideration the one preceding it, in which it is declared that 
"henceforth" the American continents are not open to European coloni- 
zation ; and the clause immediately succeeding it, which says that "no future 
European colony or dominion" shall, with our consent, be planted on the North 
American continent, who can doubt that Great Britain will feel herself au- 
thorized to construe the resolution into a declaration on our part of uncondi- 
tional acquiescence in her right to hold all the colonies and dependencies she 
at this time may possess in America ? Is the Senate of the United States 
prepared to make such a declaration ? Is this republic, in view of our pro- 
fessions for the last thirty years, and of our present and prospective position, 
prepared to submit to such a result ? If we are, let us seal our lips, and talk 
no more about European colonization upon the American continents. What 
is to redeem our declarations upon this subject in the future from utter con- 
tempt, if we fail to vindicate the past, and meekly submit to the humiliation 
of the present ? With an avowed policy, of thirty years' standing, that no 
future European colonization is to be permitted in America — affirmed when 
there was no opportunity for enforcing it, and abandoned whenever a case was 
presented for carrying it into practical effect — is it now proposed to beat an- 
other retreat under cover of terrible threats of awful consequences when the 
offense shall be repeated ? "Henceforth" no " future" European colony is to 
be planted in America " with our consent /" It is gratifying to learn that the 
United States are never going to ' ' consent" to the repudiation of the Monroe 
doctrine again. No more Clayton and Bulwer treaties ; no more British 
"alliances" in Central America, New Granada, or Mexico ; no more resolu- 
tions of oblivion to protect "existing rights!" Let England tremble, and 
Europe take warning, if the offense is repeated. "Should the attempt be 
made," says the resolution, " it will leave the United States free to adopt such 
measures as an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights 
and honor." Are not the United States nowyree to adopt such measures as 
an independent nation may justly adopt in defense of its rights and honor? 
Have we not given the notice ? Is not thirty years sufficient notice ? And 
has it not been repeated within the last eight years, and yet the deed is done 
in contempt of not only the Monroe doctrine, but of solemn treaty stipula- 
tions ? Will you ever have a better opportunity to establish the doctrine — a 
clearer right to vindicate, or a more flagrant wrong to redress ? If you do not 
do it now, your "henceforth" resolutions, in respect to "future" attempts, 
may as well be dispensed with. I have no resolutions to bring forward in re- 
lation to our foreign policy. Circumstances have deprived me of the oppor- 
tunity or disposition to participate actively in the proceedings of the Senate 
this session. I know not what the present administration has done or is do- 



102 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ing in reference to this question ; and I am willing to leave the incoming ad- 
ministration free to assume its own position, and to take the initiation unem- 
barrassed by the action of the Senate. 

My principal object in addressing the Senate to-day is to avail myself of 
the opportunity, now for the first time presented by the removal of the'injunc- 
tion of secrecy, of explaining my reasons for opposing the ratification of the 
Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In order to clearly understand the question in 
all its bearings, it is necessary to advert to the circumstances under which it 
was presented. The Oregon boundary had been established, and important 
interests had grown up in that territory ; California had been acquired, and 
an immense commerce had sprung into existence ; lines of steamers had been 
established from New York and New Orleans to Chagres, and from Panama 
to California and Oregon ; American citizens had acquired the right of way, 
and were engaged in the construction of a railroad across the Isthmus of Pa- 
nama, under the protection of treaty stipulations with New Granada ; other 
American citizens had secured the right of way, and were preparing to con- 
struct a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through Lake Nicaragua ; and 
still other American citizens had procured the right of way, and were prepar- 
ing to commence the construction of a railroad, under a grant from Mexico, 
across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Thus the right of transit on all the' 
routes across the isthmus had passed into American hands, and were within 
the protection and control of the American government. 

In view of this state of things, Mr. Hise, who had been appointed charge 
d'affaires, under the administration of Mr. Polk, to the Central American 
States, negotiated a treaty with the State of Nicaragua which secured to the 
United States forever the exclusive privilege of opening and using all canals, 
railroads, and other means of communication, from the Atlantic to the Pa- 
cific, through the territory of that republic. The rights, privileges, and im- 
munities conceded by that treaty were all that any American could have de- 
sired. Its provisions are presumed to be within the knowledge of every sen- 
ator, and ought to be familiar to the people of this country. The grant was 
to the United States, or to such companies as should be organized under its 
authority, or received under its protection. The privileges were exclusive in 
their terms and perpetual in their tenure. They were to continue forever as 
inalienable American rights. In addition to the privilege of constructing and 
using all roads and canals through the territory of Nicaragua, Mr. Hise's 
treaty also secured to the United States the right to erect and garrison such 
fortifications as we should deem necessary at the termini of such communi- 
cation on each ocean, and at intermediate points along the lines of .the works, 
together with a grant of lands three miles square at the termini for the estab- 
lishment of towns with free ports and free institutions. I do not deem it nec- 
essary to detain the Senate by reading the provisions of this treaty. It is 
published iu the document I hold in my hand, and is open to every one who 
chooses to examine it. It was submitted to the Department of State in 
"Washington on the 15th of September, 1849, but never sent to the Senate for 
ratification. In the mean time, the administration of General Taylor had su- 
perseded Mr. Hise by the appointment of another representative to the Cen- 
tral American States, and instructed him, in procuring a grant for a canal, to 

"CLAIM NO PECULIAR PRIVILEGE NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT — NO MONOPOLY OP 

COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE." 

After having thus instructed Mr. Squier as to the basis of the treaty which 
he was to conclude, Mr. Clayton seems to have been apprehensive that Mr. 
Hise might already have entered into a convention by which the United States 
had secured the exclusive and perpetual privilege, and in order to guard 
against such a contingency, he adds, at the conclusion of the same letter of 
instructions, the following : 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 103 

"If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or 
inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it prop- 
erly MODIFIED TO ANSWER THE ENDS WE HAVE IN VIEW." 

In other words, if Mr. Hise shall have made a treaty by which he may 
have secured all the desired privileges to the United States exclusively, " seek 
to have it properly modified," so as to form a partnership with England and 
other monarchical powers of Europe, and thus lay the foundation for an alli- 
ance between the New and Old World, by which the right of European pow- 
ers to intermeddle with the affairs of American states will be established and 
recognized. With these instructions in his pocket, Mr. Squier arrived in Nic- 
aragua, and before he reached the seat of government, learned, by a " publi- 
cation in the Gazette of the Isthmus, " that Mr. Hise was already negotiating 
a treaty in respect to, the contemplated canal. Without knowing the pro- 
visions of the treaty, but taking it for granted that it was in violation of the 
principles of General Taylor's administration, as set forth in his instructions, 
Mr. Squier immediately dispatched a notice to the government of Nicaragua, 
that "Mr. Hise was superseded on the 2d of April last, upon which date I (Mr. 
Squier) received my commission as his successor ;" " that Mr. Hise was not 
empowered to enter upon any negotiations of the character referred to ;" and 
concluding with the following request : 

" I have, therefore, to request that no action will be taken by the government 
of Nicaragua upon the inchoate treaty which may have been negotiated at Gua- 
temala, but that the same mat be alloaved to pass as an unofficial act." 

On the same day, Mr. Squier, with commendaole promptness, sends a let- 
ter to Mr. Clayton, informing our government of what he had learned in re- 
spect to the probable conclusion of the Hise treaty, and expressing his appre- 
hension that the information may be true, and adds : 

"If so, I shall be placed in a situation of some embarrassment, as I con- 
ceive that Mr. Hise has no authority for the step he has taken, and is certain- 
ly not informed of the present views and desires of our government." 

He also adds : 

"Under these circumstances, I have addressed a note [B] to the govern- 
ment of this republic (Nicaragua), requesting that the treaty made at Gua- 
temala (if any such exists) may be alloived to f)ass as an unofficial act, and that 
new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of government. " 

Having communicated this important intelligence to his own government, 
Mr. Squier proceeded on his journey with a patriotic zeal equal to the im- 
portance of his mission, and on his arrival upon the theatre of his labors 
opened negotiations for a new treaty in accordance with the "present views 
and desires of our government," as contained in his instructions. The new 
treaty was concluded on the 3d of September, 1849, and transmitted to the 
government, with a letter explanatory of the negotiation, bearing date the 10th 
of the same month. Mr. Squier's treaty, so far as I can judge from the pub- 
lished correspondence — for the injunction of secrecy forbids a reference to 
more authentic sources of information — is in strict accordance with his in- 
structions, and entirely free from any odious provisions which might secure 
"peculiar privileges or exclusive rights" to the United States. 

These two treaties — the one negotiated by Mr. Hise and the other by Mr. 
Squier — were in the State Department in this city when Congress met in 
December, 1819. The administration of General Taylor was at liberty to 
choose between them, and submit the one or the other to the Senate for rat- 
ification. The Hise treaty was suppressed, without giving the Senate an op- 
portunity of ratifying it or advising its rejection. I am aware that a single 
letter published in this document of correspondence (House of Representatives, 
Executive Document, No. 75) gives an apparent excuse — a mere pretext — for 
withholding it from the Senate. I allude to the letter of Mr. Carache, 



104 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

charge d'affaires from Nicaragua, to Mr. Clayton, dated Washington, Dc 
cember 31, 1849, that the Hise treaty "has been, as is publicly and universe 
ally known, disapproved by my government, and that my government desire? 
the ratification of the treaty signed by Mr. Squier on the 3d of September 
last." And I am also aware that Mr. Clayton, in reply to this letter, stated 
to Mr. Carache that "if, however, as you state, that convention has not 
been approved by your government, there is no necessity for its farther con- 
sideration by the government of the United States." From this it would seem 
that Mr. Clayton desires to have it understood that the failure of the govern- 
ment of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was the reason he suppressed 
it, and refused to allow the Senate an opportunity of ratifying it. Is that 
the true reason ? Why did the government of Nicaragua fail to approve the 
Hise treaty ? I have already shown conclusively that the failure to approve 
on the part of the government of Nicaragua was produced by the represent- 
ative of General Taylor's administration in Central America, acting in obe- 
dience to the imperative instruction of the State Department of this city, over 
the signature of Mr. Clayton himself. Mr. Clayton had instructed Mr. 
Squier, in advance, that in the event Mr. Hise should have made a treaty 
before his arrival in the country, he (Mr. Squier) must " seek to have it prop^ 
erly modified to answ t er the ends we have in view." Mr. Squier did 
"seek" to have it so "modified," and with great difficulty, as the correspond- 
ence proves, succeeded in the effort. The government and people of Nicara- 
gua were anxious to grant the exclusive and perpetual privilege to the United 
States, and to prevent the consummation of the grand European alliance and 
partnership. Mr. Squier, in his letter of September 10, 1849, communica- 
ting to Mr. Clayton the joyous news that his efforts had been crowned with 
complete success, says : 

"Sir : I have the satisfaction of informing the department that I have suc- 
ceeded in accomplishing the object of my mission to this republic" 

Then, after giving an exposition of the main provisions of his treaty, he de- 
tails the embarrassment he was compelled to encounter before he could bring 
the government of Nicaragua to terms. Hear him, and then judge whether 
the failure of the government of Nicaragua to approve the Hise treaty was 
the reason why Mr. Clayton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratifica- 
tion ! 

"The principal source of embarrassment was Mr. Hise's special 
convention, which had raised extravagant hopes of a relation between the 
United States, amounting to something closer than exists between the states 
of our confederacy. However, as matters have been finally arranged, they 
are all the better for this republic, and quite as favorable to the United 
States." 

So it seems that the Hise treaty was ' ' the principal source of embarrass- 
ment" to the consummation of the European partnership. It "had raised ex- 
travagant hopes" on the part of the government and people of Nicaragua of 
a " closer" relation to the United States, which it was difficult to induce them 
to relinquish. It required all the zeal, skill, and tact of Mr. Squier to accom- 
plish so great a feat. "Finally" the matter was " arranged," and the result 
communicated to the department with "satisfaction," in these memorable 
words, which must have carried great joy to Mr. Clayton's heart : "I have 
succeeded in accomplishing the objects of my mission to this republic." Re- 
joice, all ye advocates of European intervention in the affairs of the American 
continent ! The Hise treaty is dead ! The principal source of embarrass- 
ment is removed ! Nicaragua has failed to approve the special convention 
granting peculiar privileges and exclusive rights to the United States ! This 
iailure has enabled us "properly to modify the grant, so as to answer the 
ends we have in view," and, at the same time, relieves Mr. Clayton from the 



POLICY "WITH FOKEIGN NATIONS. 105 

imminent risk of submitting these peculiar privileges to the Senate, where 
there was great danger of their being accepted. Nicaragua has at last con- 
sented ! Her appeals to the United States for mediation or protection against 
British aggression being unheeded — her letters to our government remaining 
unanswered — their receipt not even acknowledged — her hopes of a closer re- 
lation to this Union blasted — the Monroe doctrine abandoned — the Mosquito 
kingdom, under the British protectorate, rapidly absorbing her territory, she 
sinks in despair, and yields herself to the European partnership which was 
about to be established over all Central America by the Clayton and Bulwer 
treaty ! 

Now, sir, I repeat that these two treaties — the one negotiated by Mr. Hise 
and the other by Mr. Squier, the first conceding peculiar privileges and ex- 
clusive and perpetual rights to the United States, the second admitting of a 
partnership in these privileges with European powers, Mr. Clayton suppress- 
ed the first, and sent the second to the Senate for ratification, and imme- 
diately opened negotiations with the British minister, which resulted in what 
is known as the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. In stating my objections to 
this treaty, I shall not become a party to the protracted controversy respect- 
ing its true meaning and construction, which has engaged so much of the 
attention of this session. I leave that in the hands of those who conducted 
the negotiation and procured its ratification. That is their own quarrel, 
with which I have no disposition to interfere. Establish which construction 
you please — that contended for by the secretary of state who signed it, or 
the one insisted upon by the venerable senator from Michigan, and those 
who acted in concert with him in ratifying it — neither obviates any one of 
my objections. 

In the first place, I was unwilling to enter into treaty stipulations with 
Great Britain or any other European power in respect to the American con- 
tinent, by the terms of which we should pledge the faith of this republic not 
to do in all coming time that which in the progress of events our interests, 
duty, and even safety may compel us to do. I have already said, and now 
repeat, that every article, clause, and provision of that treaty is predicated 
upon a virtual negation and repudiation of the Monroe declaration in relation 
to European colonization on this continent. The article inviting any power 
on earth with which England and the United States are on terms of friendly 
intercourse to enter into similar stipulations, and which pledges the good 
offices of each, when requested by the other, to aid in the new negotiations 
with the other Central American states, and which pledges the good offices 
of all the nations entering into the " alliance" to settle disputes between the 
states and governments of Central America, not only recognizes the right of 
European powers to interfere with the affairs of the American continent, but 
invites the exercise of such right, and makes it obligatory to do so in certain 
cases. It establishes, in terms, an alliance between the contracting parties, 
and invites all other nations to become parties to it. I was opposed also to 
the clause which stipulates that neither Great Britain nor the United States 
will ever occupy, colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of Nicara- 
gua, Costa Rica,' the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America. I did 
not desire then, nor do I now, to annex any portion of that country to this 
Union. I do not know that the time will ever come in my day when I would 
be willing to do so. Yet I was unwilling to give the pledge that neither we 
nor our successors ever would. This is an age of rapid movements and great 
changes. How long is it since those who made this treaty would have told 
us that the time would never come when we would want California or any 
portion of the Pacific coast ? California being a state of the Union, who is 
authorized to say that the time will not arrive when our interests and safety 
may require us to possess some portion of Central America, which lies half 

E 2 



106 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions, and embraces the great 
water lines of commerce between the two oceans ? I think it the wiser and 
safer policy to hold the control of our own action, and leave those who are 
to come after us untrammeled and free to do whatever they may deem their 
duty, when the time shall arrive. They will have a better right to determine 
for themselves when the necessity for action may arise, than we have now to 
prescribe the line of duty for them. I was equally opposed to that other 
clause in the same article, which stipulates that neither party will ever fortify- 
any portion of Central America, or any place commanding the entrance to 
the canal, or in the vicinity thereof. It is not reciprocal, for the reason that 
it leaves the island of Jamaica, a British colony, strongly fortified, the near- 
est military and naval station to the line of the canal. It is, therefore, 
equivalent to a stipulation that the United States shall never have or main- 
tain any fortification in the vicinity of, or commanding the line of navigation 
and commerce through said canal, while England may keep and maintain 
those she now has. 

I was not satisfied with the clause in relation to the British protectorate 
over the Mosquito Coast. It is equivocal in terms, and no man can say 
with certainty whether the true construction excludes the protectorate from 
the continent or recognizes its rightful existence, and imposes restraints upon 
its use and exercise. Equivocal terms in treaties are easily understood where 
the stipulations are between a strong power on the one hand and a feeble 
one on the other. The stronger enforces its own construction, and the 
weaker has no alternative but reluctant acquiescence. In this case neither 
party may be willing to recognize the potential right of the other to prescribe 
and enforce a construction of the equivocal terms which shall enable it to ap- 
propriate to itself all the advantages in question. It would seem that our 
own government have not ventured to insist upon a rigid enforcement of the 
provisions of the treaty in relation to the British protectorate over the Mos- 
quito Coast, in the sense in which it was explained and understood when 
submitted to the Senate for ratification. Has the British protectorate disap- 
peared from Central America ? I am not referring to the matters in contro- 
versy between certain senators who supported the treaty and Mr. Clayton, in 
respect to the Balize settlement. I allude to the Mosquito Coast, which, by 
name and in terms, is expressly made subject to the provisions of the treaty. 
Has the British protectorate disappeared from that part of Central America ? 
Have the British authorities retired from the port of San Juan, and thereby 
recognized the right of American citizens and vessels to arrive and depart 
free of hinderance and molestation ? Is it not well known that the protector- 
ate is continued and maintained with increased vigor and boldness ? Is not 
the British consul at San Juan now actively engaged in disposing of the soil, 
conveying town lots and lands, and exercising the highest functions of sover- 
eignty under the pretext of protecting the rights of the Mosquito king? 
These things are being done openly and without disguise, and are well known 
to the world. Can any senator inform me whether this government has 
taken the slightest notice of these transactions ? Has our government en- 
tered its protest against these infractions of the treaty, or demanded a specific 
compliance with our understanding of its terms? How long are we to wait 
for Great Britain to abandon her occupancy and withdraw her machinery of 
government ? Nearly three years have elapsed since we were boastingly told 
that by the provisions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty Great Britain was 
expelled from Central America. Shall we wait patiently until our silence 
shall be construed into acquiescence in her right to remain and maintain 
her possessions ? 

But there was another insuperable objection to the Clayton and Bulwer 
treaty which increases, enlarges, and extends the force of all the obnoxious 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 107 

provisions I have pointed out. I allude to the article in which it is pro- 
vided that 

"The government of the United States and Great Britain, having not only 
desired to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general 

PRINCIPLE, THEY HEREBY AGREE TO EXTEND THEIR PROTECTION, BY TREATY 
STIPULATIONS, TO ANY OTHER PRACTICABLE COMMUNICATIONS, whether by Canal 

or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and 
especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be prac- 
ticable, whether by canal or railway, ivhich are now proposed to be established by 
the way o/Tehuantepec or Panama." 

The "particular object" which the parties had in view being thus accom- 
plished — the Hise treaty defeated, the exclusive privilege to the United States 
surrendered and abandoned, and the European partnership established — yet 
they were not satisfied. They were not content to "accomplish a particu- 
lar object, " but desired to "establish a general principle !" That which, 
by the tercns of the treaty, was particular and local to the five states of Cen- 
tral America, is, in this article, extended to Mexico on the north, and to 
New Granada on the south, and declared to be a general principle by which 
any and all other practicable routes of communication across the isthmus be- 
tween North and South America are to be governed and protected by the 
allied powers. New and additional treaty stipulations are to be entered into 
for this purpose, and the net-work which had been prepared and spread over 
all Central America is to be extended far enough into Mexico and New 
Granada to cover all the lines of communication, whether by railway or canal, 
and especially to include Tehuantepec and Panama. When it is remember- 
ed that the treaty in terms establishes an alliance between the United States 
and Great Britain, and engages to invite all other powers, with which either 
is on terms of friendly intercourse, to become parties to its provisions, it will 
be seen that this article seeks to make the principles of the Clayton and Bul- 
wer treaty the law of nations in respect to American affairs. The general 
principle is established ; the right of European powers to intervene in the af- 
fairs of American states is recognized ; the propriety of the exercise of that 
right is acknowledged ; and the extent to which the allied powers shall carry 
their protection, and the limits within which they shall confine their opera- 
tions, are subject to treaty stipulations in the future. 

When the American continent shall have passed under the protectorate 
of the allied powers, and her future made dependent upon treaty stipulations 
for carrying into effect the object of the alliance, Europe will no longer have 
cause for serious apprehensions at the rapid growth, expansion, and develop- 
ment of our federal Union. She will then console herself that limits have 
been set and barriers erected beyond which the territories of this republic 
can never extend, nor its principles prevail. In confirmation of this view, 
she will find additional cause for congratulation when she looks into the treaty 
of peace with Mexico, and there sees the sacred honor of this republic irrev- 
ocably pledged that we will never, in all coming time, annex any more Mex- 
ican territory in the mode in which Texas was acquired. The fifth article 
contains the following extraordinary provision : 

"The boundary-line established by this article shall be religiously respect- 
ed by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein 
except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the 
general government of each, in conformity with its own Constitution." 

One would naturally suppose that, for all the ordinary purposes of a treaty 
of peace, the first clause of the paragraph would have been entirely sufficient. 
It declares that " the boundary-line established by this article shall be relig- 
iously respected by each of the two republics." Why depart from the usual 
course of proceeding in such cases, and add, that " no change shall ever be 



108 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully 
given by the general government of each, in conformity with its own Consti- 
tution." What is the meaning of this peculiar phraseology? The history 
of Texas furnishes the key by which the hidden meaning can he unlocked. 
The Sabine was once the boundary between the republics of the United States 
and Mexico. By the revolt of Texas and the establishment of her inde- 
pendence, and the acknowledgment thereof by the great powers of the world, 
and her annexation to the United States, the boundary between the two re- 
publics was ' ' changed" from the Sabine to the Rio Grande icithout ' ' the ex- 
press and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the general govern- 
ment of each, in conformity with its own Constitution." Mexico regarded 
that change a just cause of war, and accordingly invaded Texas with a view 
to the recovery of the lost territory. A protracted war ensued, in which 
thousands of lives were lost, and millions of money expended, when peace is 
concluded upon the express condition that the treaty should contain an open 
and frank avowal that the United States has been wrong in the causes of the 
war, by the pledge of her honor never to repeat the act which led to hostilities. 

Wherever you turn your eye, whether to your own record, to the statute- 
books, to the history of this country or of Mexico, or to the diplomatic his- 
tory of the world, this humiliating and degrading acknowledgment stares you 
in the face, as a monument of your own creation, to the dishonor of our com- 
mon country. Well do I remember the determined and protracted efforts of 
the minority to expunge this odious clause from the treaty before its ratifica- 
tion, and how, on the 4th of March, 1848, we were voted down by forty-two 
to eleven. The stain which that clause fastened upon the history of our coun- 
try was not the only objection I urged to its retention in the treaty. It vio- 
lated a great principle of public policy in relation to this continent. It 
pledges the faith of this republic that our successors shall not do that which 
duty to the interests and honor of the country, in the progress of events, may 
compel them to do. I do not meditate or look with favor upon any aggres- 
sion upon Mexico. I do not desire, at this time, to annex any portion of her 
territory to this Union; nor am I prepared to say that the time will ever 
come, in my day, when I would be willing to sanction such a proposition. 
But who can say that, amid the general wreck and demoralization in Mex- 
ico, a state of things may not arise in which a just regard for our own rights 
and safety, and for the sake of humanity and civilization, may render it im- 
perative for us to do that which was done in the case of Texas, and thereby 
change the boundary between the two republics, without the free consent of" 
the general government of Mexico, lawfully given in conformity with her Con- 
stitution ? Recent events in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Tamauiipas do not es- 
tablish the wisdom and propriety of that line of policy which ties our hands 
in advance, and deprives the government of the right, in the future, of doing 
whatever duty and honor may require, when the necessity for action may 
arrive. 

Mr. President, one of the resolutions under consideration makes a decla- 
ration in relation to the island of Cuba, which requires a passing notice. It 
is in the following words : 

"That, while the United States disclaim any designs upon the island of 
Cuba, inconsistent with the laws of nations and with their duties to Spain, 
they consider it due to the vast importance of the subject to make known, in 
this solemn manner, that they should view all efforts on the part of any other 
power to procure possession, whether peaceably or forcibly, of that island, 
which, as a naval or military position, must, under circumstances easy to be 
foreseen, become dangerous to their southern coast, to the Gulf of Mexico, 
and to the mouth of the Mississippi, as unfriendly acts, directed against them, 
to be resisted by all the means in their power." 



POLICY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 109 

That we would resist any attempt to transfer the island of Cuba to any Eu- 
ropean power, either with or without the consent of Spain, there is, I trust, 
no question in the mind of any American, and the fact is as well known to 
Europe as it is to our own country. That the United States do not meditate 
any designs upon the island inconsistent with the laws of nations, and with 
their duties to Spain, has been demonstrated to the world in a manner that 
forbids the necessity for a disclaimer of unworthy and perfidious purposes on 
our part. The resolutions convey, beneath this disclaimer, the implication 
that our character is subject to suspicion upon that point. Shall we let the 
presumption go abroad that a disclaimer of an act of dishonesty, and perfidy, 
and infamy has become necessary upon our part ? Sir, is there any thing in 
the history of our relations with foreign nations, or in respect to Cuba, that 
should subject our country to such injurious imputations? When has our 
government failed to perform its whole duty as a neutral power in respect to 
Cuba ? The only complaint has been, that in its great anxiety to preserve in 
good faith its neutral relations, it has permitted treaty stipulations with Spain, 
providing for the protection of our citizens, to be wantonly and flagrantly vi- 
olated. No suspicion that this government has been wanting in energy and 
fidelity in the enforcement of our laws has been entertained in any quarter. 
It was the excessive energy and severity with which the duty was performed 
that has provoked the disapprobation of some portion of the American people. 

Sir, what right has Great Britain to call upon the United States, as she 
did in a late application, to enter into a negotiation to guarantee Cuba to 
Spain ? Such a step might have been necessaiy on the part of England in 
order to satisfy Spain that she has abandoned the policy which for centuries 
has marked her colonial history with plunder and rapine. Why does not 
England first restore to Spain the island of Jamaica, by the seizure and pos- 
ssesiou of which she is enabled to overlook Cuba, while it gives her the com- 
mand of the entrance of the proposed Nicaragua canal ? Why does she not 
restore to old Spain Gibraltar, which, from proximity and geographical posi- 
tion, naturally belongs to her, and is essential to her safety ? Why does she 
not restore the colonial possessions which she has stretched all over the world, 
commanding every important military and naval station, both upon land and 
water ? Why does she not restore them to their original owners, from whom 
she obtained them by fraud and violence ? Why does she not do these things 
before she calls upon us to enter into stipulations that we will not rob Spain 
of the island of Cuba ? 

The whole system of European colonization rests upon seizure, violence, 
and fraud. European powers hold nearly all their colonies by the one or 
the other of these tenures. They can show no other evidence, no other mu- 
niment of title. What is there in the history of the United States that re- 
quires us to make any such disclaimer? We have never acquired one inch 
of territory, except by honest purchase and full payment of the consideration. 
We have never seized any Spanish or other European colony. We have 
never invaded the rights of other nations. We do not hold in our hand the 
results of rapine, violence, war, and fraud for centuries, and then prate about 
honesty, and propose to honest people to enter into guarantees that they will 
not rob their neighbors. * * * * 

I confess I have not formed a very high appreciation of the value of these 
disclaimers of all intention of committing crimes against our neighbors. I 
do not think I should deem my house any more secure in the night in conse- 
quence of the thief having pledged his honor not to steal my property. If I 
am surrounded by honest men, there is no necessity for the "friendly assu- 
rance ;" and if by rogues, it would not relieve my apprehensions or afford 
much security to my rights. I am unwilling, therefore, to make any dis- 
claimer as to our purposes upon Cuba, or to give any pledge in respect to 



110 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

existing rights upon this continent. The nations of Europe have no right to 
call upon us for a disclaimer of the one, or for a pledge to protect the other. 
It is true, British newspapers are in the habit of calumniating the people of 
the United States as a set of marauders upon the territorial rights of our 
neighbors. It is also true that, for party purposes, some portion of the press 
of this country is in the habit of attributing such sentiments to some of our 
public men ; but it is not true, so far as I know, that any one man in either 
house of Congress does entertain, or has ever entertained or avowed, a senti- 
ment that justifies such an imputation. I am unwilling, therefore, to coun- 
tenance the vile slander by voting for a resolution which by imputation con- 
tains so base an insinuation. Perhaps I may as well speak plainly. I feel 
that there may be a lurking insinuation in these two clauses, having a little 
bearing toward an individual of about my proportions. It is the vocation of 
some partisan presses and personal organs to denounce and stigmatize a cer- 
tain class of politicians, by attributing to them unworthy and disreputable 
purposes, under the cognomen of "Young America." It is their amiable 
custom, I believe, when they come to individualize, to point to me as the one 
most worthy to bear the appellation. I have never either assumed or dis- 
claimed it. I have never before alluded to it, and should not on the present 
occasion, had it not been introduced into the discussions of the Senate in 
such a manner as to leave the impression that I evaded it if I failed to no- 
tice it. I am aware that the senator who the other day directed so large a 
portion of his speech against the supposed doctrines of ' ' Young America" 
had no reference to myself in that part of his speech, and that the only allu- 
sion he made to me was kind and complimentary. So far as I am concerned, 
and those who harmonize with me in sentiment and action, the votes to which 
I have referred, and the reasons I have given in support of them, constitute 
the only profession of faith I deem it necessary to make on this subject. I 
am willing to compare votes and acts, principles and professions, with any 
senator who chooses to assail me. I yield to none in strict observance of the 
laws of nations and treaty stipulations. I may not have been willing blindly 
or recklessly to pledge the faith of the republic for all time on points where, 
in the nature of things, it was not reasonable to suppose that the pledge could 
be preserved. I may have deemed it wise and prudent to hold the control 
of our own nation, and leave our successors free, according to their own sense 
of duty under the circumstances which may then exist. 

CUBA. 

Now, sir, a few words with regard to the island of Cuba. If any man de- 
sires my opinions upon that question, he can learn them very easily. They 
have been proclaimed frequently for the last nine years, and still remain un- 
changed. I have often said, and now repeat that, so long as the island of 
Cuba is content to remain loyal to the crown of Spain, be it so. I have no 
desire, no wish to disturb that relation. I have always said, and now repeat 
that, whenever the people of the island of Cuba shall show themselves worthy 
of freedom by asserting and maintaining their independence and establishing 
republican institutions, my heart, my sympathies, my prayers are with them 
for the accomplishment of the object. I have often said, and now repeat that, 
when that independence shall have been established, if it shall be necessary 
to their interest or safety to apply as Texas did for annexation, I shall be 
ready to do by them as we did by Texas, and receive them into the Union. 
I have said, and now repeat that, whenever Spain shall come to the conclu- 
sion that she can not much longer maintain her dominion over the island, 
and that it is better for her to transfer it to us upon fair and reasonable terms, 
I am one of those who would be ready to accept the transfer. I have said, 



TEEEITOBIAL EXPANSION. — FOEEIGN AGGEESSIONS. Ill 

and now repeat that, whenever Spain shall refuse to make such transfer to 
us, and shall make it to England or any other European power, I would be 
among those who would be in favor of taking possession of the island, and 
resisting such transfer at all hazards. 

Thus far I have often gone ; thus far I now go. These are my individual 
opinions ; not of much consequence, I admit, but any one who desires to know 
them is welcome to them. But it is one thing for me to entertain these indi- 
vidual sentiments, and it is another and very different thing to pledge forever 
and unalterably the policy of this government in a particular channel, in de- 
fiance of any change in the circumstances that may hereafter take place. I 
do not deem it necessary to affirm by a resolution, in the name of the repub- 
lic, every opinion that I may entertain and be willing to act upon as the rep- 
resentative of a local constituency. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that 
it is wise policy to make any declaration upon the subject of the island of 
Cuba. Circumstances not within our control, and originating in causes be- 
yond our reach, may precipitate a state of things that would change our ac- 
tion and reverse our whole line of policy. Cuba, in the existing position of 
affairs, does not present a practical issue. All that we may say or do is 
merely speculative, and dependent upon contingencies that may never happen. 



CHAPTER VII. 

TEEEITOEIAL EXPANSION. — FOEEIGN AGGEESSIONS. 

The Senate reassembled on the 4th of March. Mr. Clayton 
submitted resolutions calling for certain information respect- 
ing negotiations with Costa Rica, Honduras, etc. On the 8th 
and 9th of March he addressed the Senate on the general sub- 
ject of Central American affairs, and criticised with severity 
the remarks made by Senators Mason, Cass, and Douglas dur- 
ing the debate in February. On the 10th of March Mr. Doug- 
las replied in an argument of rare ability and searching power. 
He reviewed the entire history of the negotiations respecting 
Central American affairs during the Taylor administration. A 
few extracts from the closing portion of his speech will furnish 
most clearly his views upon the great question of extending 
the territorial limits of the United States. His views upon 
that point are stated with great precision and force. He said : 

' ' But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to pro- 
long the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of 
the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the 
pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty never to annex any portion of that 
country. I objected to that clause in the treaty upon the ground that I was 
unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European power in re- 
spect to this continent, that we would not do, in the future, whatever our 
duty, interest, honor, and safety might require in the course of events. The 
senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwill- 
ing to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there 



112 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipulation that, in 
certain contingencies, we would never annex any portion of that country. 
Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision. He has 
not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clause out of the treaty, where 
it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the senator given me his aid 
then to defeat that provision in the Mexican treaty, I would be better satis- 
fied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his 
treaty. But, having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt to 
avoid the responsibility of Ms own act by citing it as a precedent. I was un- 
willing to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any 
more territory. I am content for the present with the territory we have. I 
do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex 
any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time. 

"But I can not close my eyes to the history of this country for the last 
half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate 
whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the 
Mississippi, and it was then contended that we could never, with safety, ex- 
tend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the 
Alleghany Mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should nev- 
er pass. At a subsequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Flori- 
da, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we 
might venture to establish one tier of states west of the Mississippi ; but, in 
order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of our territory, the 
policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Territory, with titles in perpetu- 
ity, all along the western borders of those states, so that no more new states 
could possibly be created in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the 
onward progress of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky 
Mountains, and were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who, then, 
is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier 
of the ocean in our western course, we may not be compelled to turn to the 
north and to the south for an outlet ?" * * * * 

"You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limbs of this 
giant republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be 
onward to a limit which I will not venture to prescribe. Why the necessity 
of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico ? Do 
you not know that you will be compelled to do it ; that you can not help it ; 
that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will 
be to enable European powers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, 
and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms ? What 
is the use of your guarantee that you will never erect any fortifications in 
Central America ; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that coun- 
try? How do you know that you ean avoid doing it? If you make the ca- 
nal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle along its line ; whether 
they will not build up towns at each terminus ; whether they will not spread 
over that country, and convert it into an American state ; whether Amer- 
ican principles and American institutions will not be firmly planted there ? 
And I ask you how many years you think will pass away before you will 
find the same necessity to extend your laws over your own kindred that you 
found in the case of Texas ? How long will it be before that day arrives ? 
It may not occur in the senator's day, nor mine. But, so certain as this re- 
public exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so certain as the laws 
of progress which have raised us from a mere handful to a mighty nation 
shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be 
worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that di- 
rection. 

" Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the 



TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 113 

time when it shall be realized. I do not -wish to give any additional impulse 
to our progress. We are going fast enough. But I wish our policy, our 
laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in the me- 
chanic arts, in agriculture, and in every thing that tends to make us a great 
and powerful nation. Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare 
to meet that which can not be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt 
that clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party would ever annex, 
colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. I was opposed to it for 
another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had possession of the 
island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point to 
the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present commands the entrance of 
the canal ; and all that Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had pos- 
session of the only place commanding the canal, to procure a stipulation that 
no other power would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That 
stipulation is equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that 
we never shall. Sir, when you look at the whole history of that question, 
you will see that England, with her far-seeing, sagacious policy, has attempt- 
ed to circumscribe, and restrict, and restrain the free action of this govern- 
ment. When was it that Great Britain seized the possession of the terminus 
of this canal? Just six days after the signing of the treaty which secured to 
us California ! The moment England saw that, by the pending negotiations 
with Mexico, California was to be acquired, she collected her fleets and made 
preparations for the seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might 
be gate-keeper on the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific. 
Within six days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized by force 
and violence the very point now in controversy. Is not this fact indicative 
of her motives ? Is it not clear that her object was to obstruct our passage to 
our new possessions ? Hence I do not sympathize with that feeling which 
the senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a difference with 
a nati -n so friendly to it*, as England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of 
her friendship. It is not in the nature of things that she can be our friend. 
It is Impossible she can love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, 
we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive 
us. But for us, she would be the first power on the face of the earth. But 
for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which 
she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us, 
and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. England does not love us ; she 
can not love us ; and we do not love her either. We have some things in 
the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present 
to humiliate her that she can not forgive. 

" I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that 
exists between us and England. I wish to soften and allay it as much as 
possible; but why close our eyes to the fact that friendship is impossible 
while jealousy exists ? Hence England seizes every island in the sea and . 
rock upon our coast where she can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy 
our commerce. Her policy has been to seize every military and naval sta- 
tion the world over. Why does she pay such enormous sums to keep her 
post at Gibraltar, except to hold it ' in terrorem* over the commerce of the 
Mediterranean ? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the 
Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the 
Indies ? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the little barren 
islands Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other islands 
along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions ? Does England hold 
Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has she any other motive for 
retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us ? Is it not the 
case with all her possessions along our coast ? Why, then, talk about the 



114 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

friendly bearing of England toward us when she is extending that policy 
every day? New treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of 
new colonies in violation of her treaties, seem to he the order of the day. In 
view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet a 
rival ; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no humiliating 
concession even for the sake of peace. She has as much reason to make 
concessions to us as we have to make them to her. I would not willingly 
disturb the peace of the world, but, sir, the Bay Island colony must be dis- 
continued. It violates the treaty." 

At a subsequent part of the debate he quoted the letter of 
Mr. Everett (secretary of state under Mr. Fillmore) declining, 
on the part of the United States government, the agreement 
proposed by England and France, that neither nation should 
ever annex or take possession of Cuba. Mr. Everett, in de- 
clining that proposition, said : 

" But, whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem 
impossible for any one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note 
to mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can be ulti- 
mately arrested by a convention like that proposed. In the judgment of the 
President, it would be as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, 
in the hope of stopping the flow of tbe Gulf Stream, as to attempt, by a com- 
pact like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter, or, as is 
expressed in the French text of the convention, ' pom* le present comme pour 
l'avenir' — that is, for all coming time." 

Mr. Douglas, in commenting upon this, said : 
"There the senator is. told that such a stipulation (to annex no more ter- 
ritory) might be applicable to European politics, but would be unsuited and 
unfitted to American affairs ; that he has mistaken entirely the system of 
policy which should be applied to our own country ; that he has predicated 
his action upon those old antiquated notions which belong to the stationary 
and retrograde movements of the Old World, and find no sympathy in the 
youthful, uprising aspirations of the American heart. I endorse fully the 
sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a wide difference, between the 
system of policy which should be pursued in America and that which would 
be applicable to Europe. Europe is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the 
verge of dissolution. When you visit her, the objects which enlist your 
highest admiration are the relics of past greatness ; the broken columns 
erected to departed power. It is one vast grave-yard, where you find here a 
tomb indicating the burial of the arts ; there a monument marking the spot 
where liberty expired ; another to the memoiy of a great man whose place 
has never been filled. The choicest products of her classic soil consist in 
relics, which remain as sad memorials of departed glory and fallen greatness ! 
They bring up the memories of the dead, but inspire no hope for the living ! 
Here every thing is fresh, blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wish 
a wise, practical policy adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the 
statesman who would shape the policy of America by European models, has 
failed to perceive the antagonism which exists in the relative position, history, 
institutions — in eveiy thing pertaining to the Old and the New World." 

THE FKIENDSHIP OF ENGLAND. 

In reply to a remark, in the same debate, by Mr. Butler, he 
said : 



TEEEITOEIAL EXPANSION. — EOEEIGN AGGEESSIONS. 115 

"I can not go as far as the senator from South Carolina. I can not rec- 
ognize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has been a cruel and 
unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her affection in her watch- 
fulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride at our ever-blooming pros- 
perity and swelling power since we assumed an independent position. 

"The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were not all of 
English origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, French, and of Nor- 
man descent as well as English. In short, we inherit from every branch of 
the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and policy to profit by their exam- 
ple — to reject their errors and follies — and to retain, imitate, cultivate, per- 
petuate all that was valuable and desirable. So far as any portion of the 
credit may be due to England and Englishmen — and much of it is — let it be 
freely awarded and recorded in her ancient archives, which seem to have 
been long since forgotten by her, and the memory of which her present 
policy toward us is not well calculated to revive. But, that the senator from 
South Carolina, in view of our present position and of his location in this 
confederacy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiums of England 
for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still lavishing upon us, 
and urge these considerations in palliation of the wrongs she is daily perpe- 
trating, is to me amazing. He speaks in terms of delight and gratitude of 
the copious and refreshing streams which English literature and science are 
pouring into our country and diffusing throughout the land. Is he not 
aware that nearly every English book circulated and read in this country 
contains lurking and insidious slanders and libels upon the character of our 
people and the institutions and policy of our government ? Does he not 
know that abolitionism, which has so seriously threatened the peace and 
safety of this republic, had its origin in England, and has been incorporated 
into the policy of that government for the purpose of operating upon the pe- 
culiar institutions of some of the states of this confederacy, and thus render 
the Union itself insecure ? Does she not keep her missionaries perambu- 
lating this country, delivering lectures, and scattering broadcast incendiary 
publications, designed to incite prejudices, hate, and strife between the dif- 
ferent sections of this Union ? I had supposed that South Carolina and the 
other slaveholding states of this confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed 
and enlightened by a certain species of English literature, designed to stir up 
treason and insurrection around his own fireside, to have excused the sena- 
tor from offering up praises and hosannas to our English mother ! (Applause 
in the galleries.) Is not the heart, intellect, and press of England this mo- 
ment employed in flooding America with this species of ' English literature V 
Even the wives and daughters of the nobility and the high officers of govern- 
ment have had the presumption to address the women of America, and in 
the name of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable plot 
against the institutions and government of their own choice in their native 
land, while millions are being expended to distribute ' Uncle Tom's Cabin' 
throughout the world, with the view of combining the fanaticism, ignorance, 
and hatred of all the nations of the earth in a common crusade against the 
peculiar institutions of the state and section of this Union represented by the 
senator from South Carolina ; and he unwittingly encourages it by giving 
vent to his rapturous joy over these copious and refreshing streams with 
which England is irrigating the American intellect." (Renewed applause 
in the galleries. ) 

EEPELLING FOEEIGN AGGEESSIONS. 

Mr. Douglas has always been in favor of a strict mainte- 
nance of all the rights of nations, and of the respect and obliga- 



116 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tions properly due from one nation to another. He has always 
declared that the best way to preserve peace was to enforce a 
respect for American rights, and the surest way to invite a war 
was to submit to outrage and injustice, and thus provoke a 
state of circumstances from which war must necessarily result. 
In all things Mr. Douglas expresses his views so clearly and 
distinctly that no language can be employed that will so read- 
ily inform the reader as to his opinions as his own. In the 
Senate, in a debate on the Naval Appropriation Bill, on the 7th 
of June, 1858, he discussed the whole subject of foreign aggres- 
sions, and thus distinctly stated his views : 

"I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend from 
Georgia (Mr. Toombs), and especially that we ought to determine what we 
are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in the Gulf of Mexico 
and the West Indies, before we decide the amount of money we shall vote 
for war purposes. If we are going to content ourselves with simple resolu- 
tions that we will not submit to that which we have resolved for half a cen- 
tury should never be repeated, I see no use in additional appropriations for 
navy or for army. If we are going to be contented with loud-sounding 
speeches, with defiances to the British lion, with resolutions of the Senate 
alone, not concurred in by the other House, conferring no power on the ex- 
ecutive — merely capital for the country, giving no power to the executive to 
avenge insults or prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting money ? 
I find that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, resolve strong ; but 
are they willing to appropriate the money? Are they willing to confer on 
the executive power to repel these insults, and to avenge them whenever they 
may be perpetrated ? Let us know whether we are to submit and protest, or 
whether we are to authorize the President to resist and to prevent the repe- 
tition of these offenses. If senators are prepared to vote for a law reviving 
the act of 1839, putting the army, the navy, volunteers, and money at the dis- 
posal of the President to prevent the repetition of these acts, and to punish 
them if repeated, then I am ready to give the ships and the money ; but I 
desire to know whether we are to submit to these insults with a simple pro- 
test, or whether we are to repel them. 

" Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us about the 
necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tampico, and disturb- 
ances in South America, and Indian difficulties in Puget's Sound. Every 
enemy that can be found on the face of the earth is defied except the one 
that defies us. Bring in a proposition here to invest the President with pow- 
er to repel British aggressions on American ships, and what is the response ? 
High-sounding resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in terms, that whereas 
Great Britain has perpetrated outrages on our flag and our shipping which 
are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be repeated, therefore, if she 
does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we will pounce down upon Nicaragua, 
or we will get up a fight with Costa Rica, or we will chastise New Granada, 
or we will punish the Chinese, or we will repel the Indians from Puget's 
Sound [laughter], but not a word about Great Britain. What I desire to 
know is whether we are to meet this issue with Great Britain ? I am told 
we shall do it when we are prepared. Sir, when will you be prepared to re- 
pel an insult unless when it is given? 

* * * * * * ****** 

" Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her char- 



TEKKITOMAL EXPANSION. FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 117 

acter, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages, and avenge our- 
selves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grappling with the stronger. 
I never did fancy that policy nor admire that chivalry which induced a man, 
when insulted by a strong man of his own size, to say that he would whip 
the first boy he found in the street in order to vindicate his honor, or, as is 
suggested by a gentleman behind me, that he would go home and whip his 
wife [laughter] in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was afraid to 
tackle the full-grown man who had committed the aggression. Sir, these 
outrages can not be concealed ; they can not have the go-by ; we must meet 
them face to face. Now is the time when England must give up her claim 
to search American vessels, or we must be silent in our protests, and resolu- 
tions, and valorous speeches against that claim. It will not do to raise a 
navy for the Chinese seas, nor for Puget's Sound, nor for Mexico, nor for the 
South American republics. It may be used for those purposes, but England 
must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be looked upon as showing the white 
feather if we strike a blow at any feeble power until these English aggres- 
sions and insults are first punished, and security is obtained that they are not 
to be repeated." 

After referring to the unanimous action of Congress in 1839 
investing Mr. Van Buren with power and means to resist ag- 
gressions during the controversy respecting the northeastern 
boundary, he said : 

" The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the House of Representa- 
tives it was one hundred and ninety-seven against six. This unanimity 
among the American people, as manifested by their representatives, saved 
the two countries from war, and preserved peace between England and the 
United States upon that question. If the Senate had been nearly equally di- 
vided in 1839, if there had been but half a dozen majority for the passage of 
the measure, if the vote had been nearly divided in the House of Representa- 
tives, England would have taken courage from the divisions in our own coun- 
cils, she would have pressed her claim to a point that would have been ut- 
terly inadmissible and incompatible with our honor, and war would have been 
the inevitable consequence. 

' ' I tell you, sir, the true peace measure is that which resents the insult and 
redresses the wrong promptly upon the spot, with a unanimity that shows the 
nation can not be divided." 

He thus closed his remarks : 

"Besides, sir, as has been intimated by the senator from Massachusetts, 
England has given pledges for her good behavior on this continent. She is 
bound over to keep the peace. She has large possessions upon this continent 
of which she could be deprived in ninety days after war existed ; and she 
knows that, the moment she engages in war with us, that moment her power 
upon the American continent and upon the adjacent islands ceases to exist. 
While I am opposed to war — while I have no idea of any breach of the peace 
with England, yet I confess to you, sir, if war should come by her act and not 
ours — by her invasion of our right and our vindication of the same, I would 
administer to every citizen and every child Hannibal's oath of eternal hostil- 
ity as long as the English flag waved or their government claimed a foot of 
land upon the American continent or the adjacent islands. Sir, I would 
make it a war that would settle our disputes forever, not only of the right of 
search upon the seas, but the right to tread with a hostile foot upon the soil 
of the American continent or its appendages. England sees that these con- 
sequences would result. Her statesmen understand these results as well as 



118 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

we, and much better. Her statesmen have more respect for ns in this partic- 
ular than we have for ourselves. They will never push this question to the 
point of war. They will look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long 
as they find it is prudent. If you cast the eye down she will rush upon you. 
If you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as friends, 
and have respect for you. 

" Mr. Hammond. Suppose she does not? 

" Mr. Douglas. Suppose she does not, my friend from South Carolina asks 
me. If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of battles — we will 
arouse the patriotism of the American nation — we will blot out all distinc- 
tions of party, the voice of faction will be hushed, the American people will 
be a unit ; none but the voice of patriotism will be heard, and from the north 
and the south, from the east and the west, we will come up as a band of 
brothers, animated by a common spirit and a common patriotism, as were 
our fathers of the Revolution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterward dif- 
fer as we please, and discuss at our leisure matters of domestic dispute. Sir, 
I am willing to suppose the case which is suggested by the senator from South 
Carolina : suppose England does not respect our rights ? To fight her now — 

"Mr. Hammond. I said, suppose England would not submit to be bullied. 

" Mr. Douglas. Who pi-oposes to bully England ? 

"Mr. Hammond. I understood the senator to say that if we looked down 
she would rush on us, but if we looked up she would give way. I consider 
that bullying. 

" Mr. Douglas. Precisely ; that is the case of a bully always. He will fix 
his eye on his antagonist's, and see if it is steady. If it is not, he will ap- 
proach a little nearer. If it is, he stops ; but if his eye sinks, he rushes on 
him ; and that is the parallel in which I put England, playing the bully with 
us. The question is, whether we will look her steadily in the eye, and main- 
tain our rights against her aggressions. We do not wish to bully England. 
She is resisting no claim of ours. She sets up the claim to search our vessels, 
stop them on the high sea% invade our rights, and we say to her that we will 
not submit to that aggression. I would ask to have the United States act 
upon the defensive in all things — make no threat, indulge in no bullying, but 
simply assert our right; then maintain the assertion with whatever power 
may be necessary, and the God of our fathers may have imparted to us for 
maintaining it — that is all. I believe . that is the true course to peace. I 
repeat that, if war with England comes, it will result from our vacillation, 
our division, our hesitation, our apprehensions lest we might be whipped in 
the fight. Perhaps we might. I do not believe it. I believe the moment 
England declares war against the United States, the prestige of her power is 
gone. It will unite our own people ; it will give us the sympathy of the 
world ; it will destroy her commerce and her manufactures, while it will ex- 
tend our own. It will sink her to a second-rate power upon the face of the 
globe, and leave us without a rival who can dispute our supremacy. We 
shall, however, come to that point early through the paths of peace. Such 
is the tendency of things now. I would rather approach it by peaceable, 
quiet means, by the arts and sciences, by agriculture, by commerce, by immi- 
gration, by natural growth and expansion, than by warfare. But if England 
is impatient of our rising power, if she desires to hasten it, and should force 
war upon us, she will seal her doom now ; whereas Providence might ex- 
tend to her, if not a pardon, at least a reprieve for a few short years to come." 

FILIBUSTERISM. 

On the 7th of January, 1858, President Buchanan communi- 
cated to the Senate, in obedience to a resolution of that body, 



TEEEITOEIAL EXPANSION. — FOREIGN AGGEESSIONS. 119 

copies of the orders, instructions, and correspondence with ref- 
erence to the arrest of William Walker on the coast of Central 
America. On the motion to refer these documents, a debate 
took place involving the propriety of Commodore Paulding's 
conduct, and the course of the President in relation thereto, 
and also as to the views, expressed by him in his communica- 
tion accompanying the papers. In this debate, Messrs. Davis 
and Brown of Mississippi, Pugh of Ohio, and Toombs of Geor- 
gia, sharply criticised the message, and repudiated the exist- 
ence of the power claimed by the President in his message. 
The President was ably defended, and with much warmth, by 
Mr. Seward, and by Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin. During this 
debate Mr. Douglas expressed his views upon the affair, and 
upon nlibusterisrn generally, in the following terms : 

Mr. Douglas. I do not rise to prolong the debate, but to return the com- 
pliment which my friend from Mississippi [Mr. Brown] paid me when he said 
he admired my pluck in speaking my sentiments freely, without fear, when 
I differed from the President of the United States. He has shown his pluck, 
and various others have shown theirs, on the present occasion. According 
to the doctrine announced the other day, each senator who has done so has 
read himself out of the party. I find that I am getting into good company ; 
I have numerous associates ; I am beating up recruits a little faster than 
General Walker is at this time. [Laughter.] I think, however, it will be 
found, after a while, that we are all in the party, intending to do our duty, 
expressing our opinions freely and fearlessly, without any apprehension of 
being excommunicated, or having any penalties inflicted on us for thinking 
and speaking as we choose. If my friend from Louisiana [Mr. Slidell] were 
in his seat, I should say to him, inasmuch as he declared in his Tammany 
Hall letter that he was going to fill by recruits from the Eepublicans all the 
vacancies caused by desertions in the Democratic party on account of differ- 
ences with the President in opinion, that he seems to have been very success- 
ful to-day in getting leading Republicans on his side, and recruiting his ranks 
just about as rapidly as there are desertions on this side of the house. 
[Laughter.] The senator from New York, I believe, has the command of 
the new recruits. Well, sir, strange things occur in these days. Men rap- 
idly find themselves in line and out of line, in the party and out of the party. 

Mr. Seward. Will the honorable senator allow me to interrupt him ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 

Mr. Seward. I have an inducement on this occasion which is new and 
peculiarly gratifying to me, which will excuse me for being found on the side 
of the administration. The message announces that, in the judgment of the 
President, this expedition of Mr. Walker was in violation of the laws of the 
land, and therefore to be condemned. So far I agree with him ; but he goes 
further, and pronounces it to be in violation of "the higher law ;" and I am 
sure I should be recreant to my sense of " the higher law" itself if I did not 
come to his support on such an occasion. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Douglas. I perceive the consistency of the senator from New York 
in the ground on which he bases his support of this message. Now, sir, so 
far as the President pronounces this artest of General Walker to have been 
a violation of the law of the land, I concur with him, As to the allusion to 



120 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

"the higher law," I think that is well enough in its place, but it is not ex- 
actly appropriate in the execution of the neutrality laws of the United States. 
I would rather look into the statutes of the United States for the authority 
of the President to use the army and navy in enforcing the neutrality laws. 
By the statute of 1818 he has ample authority within the jurisdiction of the 
United States, and that jurisdiction is defined to extend as far as one marine 
league from the coast. If an arrest be made within that distance, the courts 
of the United States have jurisdiction, but there is no authority to arrest be- 
yond that distance. The authority given in the eighth section of the act, to 
which reference is made, but which is not quoted in the message, is confined 
in terms to cases within the jurisdiction of the United States as defined in the 
act. How defined? Defined in the previous sections as being within one 
marine league of the coast. It thus appears that the whole extent of the 
President's power to use the army and navy under the act of 1818 is within 
our own waters, and one marine league from the coast. 

I did suppose that the President himself put that construction on his au- 
thority, for I understood him to ask for further and additional authority from 
Congress to enable him to put down filibustering expeditions. What further 
authority could he want, if the existing laws allowed him to roam over the 
high seas, and sail around the world, and go within one marine league of ev- 
ery nation on the earth ? It might be supposed that his authority was ex- 
tensive enough to employ his entire navy, and that, certainly, he would not 
ask for power to invade other nations. 

For these reasons I supposed that the President, on reflection and examina- 
tion, had come to the conclusion that his authority was full and ample within 
one marine league of our coast, and ceased the moment you passed beyond 
that on the high seas. That has been my construction of the neutrality laws. 
I believe it is the fair construction. . I am in favor of giving those neutrality 
laws a fair, faithful, and vigorous execution. I believe the laws of the land 
should be vigorously and faithfully executed. There may be public senti- 
ment in certain localities unfavorable to the operation of the law, but preju- 
dice should not be allowed to deter us from its execution. This is a govern- 
ment of law. Let us stand by the laws so long as they stand upon the stat- 
ute-book, and execute them faithfully, whether we like or dislike them. 

Sir, I have no fancy for this system of filibustering. I believe its tendency 
is to defeat the very object they have in view, to wit, the extension of the area 
of freedom and the American flag. The President avows that his opposition 
to it is because it prevents him from carrying out a line of policy that would 
absorb Nicaragua and the countries against which these expeditions are fitted 
out. I do not know that I should dissent from the President in that object. 
I would like to see the boundaries of this republic extended gradually and 
steadily, as fast as we can Americanize the countries we acquire, and make 
their inhabitants loyal American citizens when we get them. Faster than 
that I would not de'sire to go. My opposition to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 
which pledges the faith of this nation never to annex Central America, or 
colonize it, or exercise dominion over it, was not based on the ground that I 
desired then to acquire the country ; but inasmuch as I saw that the time 
might come when Nicaragua would not be too far off to be embraced within 
our republic, being just half way to California, and on the main road there, 
I was unwilling to pledge the faith of this nation that in all time we never 
would do that which I believed our interest and our safety would compel us 
to do. I have no objection to this gradual and steady expansion as fast as 
we can Americanize the countries. I believe the interests of commerce, of 
civilization, every interest which civilized nations hold dear, would be bene- 
fited by expansion ; but still I desire to see it done regularly and lawfully, 
and I apprehend that these expeditions have a tendency to check it. To 






TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 121 

that extent I have sympathized with the reasons which the President has as- 
signed in his message for his opposition to them ; but I desire that his oppo- 
sition shall be conducted lawfully ; for I am no more willing to allow him un- 
lawfully to break them up than" I am to permit them unlawfully to fit them 
out. I am not willing to send out naval officers with vague instructions, and 
set them to filibustering all over the high seas and in the ports of foreign 
countries under the pretext of putting down filibustering. Let us hold the 
navy clearly within the law. Let the instructions that are given to our of- 
ficers be clear and specific ; and if they do not obey the law, cashier them, 
or, by other punishment, reduce them to obedience to the law. 

But in this case it is a very strange fact that Captain Chatard is degraded 
and brought home for not arresting Walker on the identical spot where Com- 
modore Paulding did arrest him. Paulding and Chatard are thus placed in 
a peculiar position. Paulding arrests him, we are told, in violation of law. 
Chatard is degraded for not arresting him in violation of law. This shows 
that the moment we depart from the path of duty, as defined by law, we get 
into difficulty every step we take. All the difficulties and embarrassments 
connected with the conduct of Paulding and Chatard arise from the fact that 
in our anxiety to preserve the good opinion of other nations, by putting a stop 
to filibustering, we have gone beyond the authority of law. I think it will be 
better for us to confine ourselves to the faithful execution of the neutrality 
laws as they stand, and stop these expeditions, if we can, before they are fitted 
out. If, notwithstanding our efforts, they escape, we are not responsible for 
them. I do not hold that every three men that leave this country with guns 
upon their shoulders are necessarily fitting out a military expedition against 
countries with which we are at peace. Each citizen of the United States has 
the same right under the Constitution to expatriate himself that a man of 
foreign birth has to naturalize himself under our laws. When the Constitu- 
tion of the United States declares that foreigners coming here may be natu- 
ralized, it recognizes the universal principle that all men have a right to ex- 
patriate themselves and become naturalized in other countries. Walker had 
a right, under the Constitution of the United States, to become a naturalized 
citizen of Nicaragua. Nicaragua had the same right to make him a citizen 
of that country that we have to make a German or an Irishman a citizen of 
this. When Walker went from California, on his first expedition to Nicara- 
gua, and became naturalized there, he was from that moment a citizen of 
Nicaragua, and not a citizen of the United States. You have no more right 
to treat Walker as a citizen of the United States than Great Britain has to 
follow an Irishman to this country, and claim that he is a British subject 
after he has been naturalized here. You have no more right to put your 
hands on Walker, after his naturalization by Nicaragua, than Austria or 
Prussia has to follow their former subjects here and arrest them on the ground 
that they were once Germans. Walker is a Nicaraguan, and not an Amer- 
ican. Since he has been President of that republic, recognized as such, it is 
too late for us to deny that he is a citizen of that country, or to claim that he 
is an American citizen. We are not responsible for his action when he is 
once beyond our jurisdiction. If he violated our laws here, we can punish 
him ; but we have no right to punish him for any violation of the laws of 
Nicaragua. If he invites men to join him, and they get their necks in the 
halter, they must not call upon us to untie the noose after they have expa- 
triated themselves. 

It is a modern doctrine that no citizen can leave our shores to engage in a 
foreign war. We filled the Russian regiments, during the Crimean war, with 
American surgeons, and only lately the Emperor of Russia has been deliver- 
ing medals and acknowledgments of knighthood to these very men. We also 
allowed our men to go and join the Turks, the English, and' the French, and 

F 



122 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

fight against the Russians. American senators were in the habit of giving to 
their friends letters to the Russian minister, in order to enable them to obtain 
from him commissions in the Russian army during the Crimean war. Did 
we suppose that we were violating the neutrality laws ? "We knew that each 
person that went on that service went on his own responsbility. If he got a 
leg shot off, he could not call upon us to protect him, or to punish the man 
who shot the gun. So it is with those who choose to go to Nicaragua and 
try their fortunes there. 

I had hoped that the feverish excitement in favor of these expeditions 
would have ceased long ago, and that we should be enabled to acquire what- 
ever interest we desired in. Central America in a regular, lawful manner, 
through negotiation rather than through these expeditions. But, sir, when 
I am called upon to express an opinion in regard to the legality of these 
movements, I must say that in my judgment the arrest of Walker was an act 
in violation of the law of nations and unauthorized by our own neutrality 
laws. To this extent, like the gentlemen around me who have spoken, I dis- 
sent from the President of the United States. I do so with deep regret, with 
great pain. My anxiety to act with that distinguished gentleman, and con- 
form to his recommendations as far as possible, will induce me to give the 
benefit of all doubts in his favor ; but where my judgment is clear, like my 
friend from Mississippi [Mr. Brown], I must take it upon myself to speak my 
own opinions and abide the consequences. 

THE ACQUISITION OF CUBA. 

In December, 1858, after the election of that year in Illinois, 
Mi*. Douglas visited the city of New Orleans. Hq was about 
closing his speech in explanation of his course upon Lecompt- 
onism, when there were loud cries of " Cuba ! Cuba !" from the 
audience. In response to these calls, Mr. Douglas said : 

" It is our destiny to have Cuba, and it is folly to debate the question. It 
naturally belongs to the American continent. It guards the mouth of the 
Mississippi River, which is the heart of the American continent, and the 
body of the American nation. Its acquisition is a matter of time only. Our 
government should adopt the policy of receiving Cuba as soon as a fair and 
just opportunity shall be presented. Whether that opportunity occur next 
year or the year after, whenever the occasion arises and the opportunity pre- 
sents itself, it should be embraced. 

" The same is true of Central America and Mexico. It will not do to say 
we have territory enough. When the Constitution was formed there was 
enough, yet in a few years afterward we needed more. We acquired Lou- 
isiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the increase in our popula- 
tion and our interests demanded. When, in 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty 
was sent to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the end. They then 
asked what I wanted with Central America. I told them I did not want it 
then, but the time would come when we must have it. They then asked 
what my objection to the treaty was. I told them I objected to that, among 
other clauses of it, which said that neither Great Britain nor the United 
States should ever buy, annex, colonize, or acquire any portion of Central 
America. I said I would never consent to a treaty with any foreign power 
pledging ourselves not to do in the future whatever interest or necessity might 
compel us to do. I was then told by veteran senators, as my distinguished 
friend well knows (looking toward Mr. Soule), that Central America was so 
far off that we should never want it, I told them then, "Yes; a good way 



TERRITORIAL EXPANSION. FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS. 123 

off — halfway to California, and on the direct road to it.' I said it was our 
right and duty to open all the highways between the Atlantic and the Gulf 
States and our possessions on the Pacific, and that I would enter into no 
treaty with Great Britain or any other government concerning the affairs of 
the American continent. And here, without a breach of confidence, I may 
be permitted to state a conversation which took place at that time between 
myself and the British minister, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, on that point. He 
took occasion to remonstrate with me that my position with regard to the 
treaty was unjust and untenable ; that the treaty was fair because it was re- 
ciprocal, and it was reciprocal because it pledged that neither Great Britain 
nor the United States should ever purchase, colonize, or acquire any terri- 
tory in Central America. I told him that it would be fair if they would add 
one word to the treaty, so that it would read that neither Great Britain nor 
the United States should ever occupy or hold dominion over Central Ameri- 
ca or Asia. But he said, 'You have no interests in Asia.' 'No,' answered 
I, ' and you have none in Central America.' 

" ' But,' said he, ' you can never establish any rights in Asia.' ' No,' said 
I, ' and we don't mean that you shall ever establish any in America.' I told 
him it would be just as respectful for us to ask that pledge in reference to 
Asia, as it was for Great Britain to ask it from us in reference to Central 
America. 

"If experience shall continue to prove, what the past may be considered 
to have demonstrated, that those little Central American powers can not 
maintain self-government, the interests of Christendom require that some 
power should preserve order for them. Hence I maintain that we should 
adopt and observe a line of policy in unison with our own interests and our 
destiny. I do not wish to force things. We live in a rapid age. Events 
crowd upon each other with marvelous rapidity. I do not want territory any 
faster than we can occupy, Americanize, and civilize it. I am no filibuster. 
I am opposed to unlawful expeditions. But, on the other hand, I am opposed 
to this country acting as a miserable constabulary for France and England. 

' ' I am in favor of expansion as fast as consistent with our interest and the 
increase and development of our population and resources ; but I am not in 
favor of that policy unless the great principle of non-intervention and the 
right of the people to decide the question of slavery and all other domestic 
questions for themselves shall be maintained. If that principle prevail, we 
have a future before us more glorious than that of any other people that ever 
existed. Our republic will endure for thousands of years. Progress will be 
the law of its destiny. It will gain new strength with every state brought 
into the confederacy. Then there will be peace and harmony between the 
free states and the slave states. The more degrees of latitude and longitude 
embraced beneath our Constitution, the better. The greater the variety of 
productions, the better ; for then we shall have the principles of free trade 
apply to the important staples of the world, making us the greatest planting 
as well as the greatest manufacturing, the greatest commercial as well as the 
greatest agricultural power on the globe." 



124 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 

Me. Douglas took an active part in the proceedings which 
resulted in the measures of legislation known as the " Com- 
promise of 1850." The general history of that compromise is 
well known to the American people. It has for a number of 
years been so thoroughly and so frequently discussed, that its 
history, as well as its provisions, have become familiar to all 
who take an interest in political matters. 

A brief synopsis of the events preceding and attending the 
adoption of that compromise will not be uninteresting, at least 
to those whose interest in the history of Mr. Douglas's career 
has induced them to read thus far in these pages. By the 
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (voted against by Mr. Douglas), 
the United States acquired the territory of California, Utah, 
and New Mexico. That treaty was ratified in 1848, and Con- 
gress shortly after adjourned without making any provision 
for the government of the newly-acquired country. During 
the short session of 1848-'9 several efforts were made, the most 
prominent of which was the Clayton Compromise, and the 
amendment of Mr. Walker of Wisconsin, which, though they 
both passed the Senate, failed to meet the approval of the 
House of Representatives. The struggle was between the 
friends and the opponents of the Wilmot Proviso. Congress 
adjourned on the 4th of March, 1849, without having made any 
provision for the government of the new territories. In the 
mean time the discovery of gold in California had drawn thou- 
sands to that state ; a civil government was absolutely neces- 
sary. The only government there was that of General Riley, 
who, by virtue of his office as commander of the American 
forces, exercised to a limited extent the functions of a civil 
governor. During the summer of 1849, the people of Califor- 
nia, aided by General Riley, who acted under instructions from 
Washington, called a convention, formed a state Constitution, 
elected state officers, put their state government in operation, 
elected two United States senators and two members of the 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 125 

House of Representatives. The Constitution of the new state 
prohibited slavery. These proceedings in California had great- 
ly added to the excitement upon the pending issue of a con- 
gressional prohibition of slavery in the territories. Those who 
had opposed any action of Congress which applied a prohibi- 
tion of slavery to any part of the new territory denounced the 
action of the people of California. They demanded that the 
usurpation by the squatters on the Pacific should be rebuked 
by Congress. It was held by many that the action of Califor- 
nia was a " snap judgment" upon the South ; that, taking ad- 
vantage of the non-action by Congress, the people of Califor- 
nia had been induced to do that, by the proceeding of estab- 
lishing a state government and the adoption of a Constitution 
prohibiting slavery, which Congress had positively refused to 
do, and which Congress had not the power to do. To admit 
California as a state, to recognize the " usurpation" of sover- 
eign powers by her people, and to recognize her broad, em- 
phatic, and sweeping prohibition of slavery, by which the peo- 
ple of one half the states of the Union were to be forever de- 
nied the privilege and right of remaining with their property 
upon the common territory of all the states, was to do indi- 
rectly that which Congress could not do directly without giv- 
ing good cause for a withdrawal from the Union by those states 
thus placed upon an inequality of right in the territories. This 
was the argument against the admission of California as far as 
the Slavery question was involved. But that was only one 
point in the great controversy. The majority of the Northern 
members elected to Congress were pledged to vote for the 
application of the Wilmot Proviso to all the territories of the 
United States. The Texas Boundary question was another 
vexed and exciting question. Texas claimed, as part of her 
territory, a vast region now embraced in the territorial limits 
of New Mexico. Texas was a slaveholding state. To admit 
her claims was to deliver up a large portion of " free soil" to 
the " slave power." In the general excitement, the subjects 
of the local traffic in slaves and the continuance of slavery in 
the District of Columbia were agitated ; and last, but not least, 
was the no less exciting, and, even to this day, hotly contested 
claim for a sufficient law to enforce the constitutional mandate 
for the rendition of fugitive slaves. Both sides had demands, 
and both sides were determined to resist the demands of each 



126 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

other. The Supreme Court having decided that it was not 
obligatory on the part of the states to provide by their laws 
for the enforcement of the rights of claimants of fugitive slaves, 
the existing law of Congress on that subject was clearly insuf- 
ficient. Following this decision, many of the states abolished 
all laws intended to aid in the rendition of fugitives from serv- 
ice; others passed laws prohibiting their officers from aiding 
in any such cause. 

The North — and, when we use the terms North and South 
in this matter, we mean the representatives in Congress of the 
extreme sentiments of both sections — the North required, 

1. The establishment of governments for all the territories 
of the United States, with a prohibition of slavery. 

2. The admission of California. 

3. The abolition of the local slave-trade in the District of 
Columbia. 

4. The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
The South claimed: 

1. An efficient fugitive slave act. 

2. The establishment of territorial governments for all the 
territories, including California, but without a prohibition of 
slavery. 

The Texas Boundary question was one on which the several 
parties divided, the South supporting the claims of Texas, and 
the North insisting that the disputed territory formed part of 
New Mexico. 

State Legislatures had passed various resolutions during the 
controversy, taking strong grounds upon these several subjects. 
Most of the Northern states had instructed their senators to 
vote for the Wilrnot Proviso, and one of these states so in- 
structing was Illinois. 

When Congress met in December, 1849, these exciting ques- 
tions were fully before the peoj)le. General Taylor had been 
elected President by the votes of the most ultra anti-slavery 
states, and by the votes of the most ultra Southern states. The 
two extremes had rejected the wise, and safe, and only practi- 
cable principle of General Cass, as avowed in his Nicholson Let- 
ter, and had put their confidence in a man whose views were, 
to speak most kindly, unknown. Massachusetts and Vermont 
had voted with Georgia and Tennessee ; both extremes were 
sure that the candidate represented then* respective views. 
Somebody was to be undeceived. 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 127 

Happily for the country, and happily for the peace and har- 
mony of the Union which he had so long and so nobly served, 
and upon every page of whose history for half a century his 
name and deeds will ever stand as bright as the brightest and 
as pure as the purest, Henry Clay had come forth from his 
retirement, had quit the peaceful shades of Ashland, once more 
to mingle in the strife of contending sections, and once more 
by his magic voice to quell the storm, and guide the hostile 
factions into one common path of peace and safety. At that 
time the Senate was in its zenith. It numbered among its 
members men whose names were historical — Webster, Phelps, 
Calhoun, Benton, Berrien, King (we name only those who are 
no longer living), each was in himself a host, whose loss can 
best be appreciated by stating that a Sumner now represents 
Massachusetts, and an Iverson holds the seat of Berrien. The 
list of senators of that session will compare, in all the elements 
of true greatness, with that of the same number of men in any 
country in any age. The House of Representatives failed for 
several weeks in organizing. At last, by the adoption of the 
plurality rule, on the 22d of December, Mr. Cobb was elected 
speaker. A portion of the North would not vote for Mr.Win- 
throp because he was not sufficiently ultra as an anti-slavery 
man, and a portion of the South refused to vote for Mr. Cobb 
because he was not ultra enough on the other extreme. 

The President's message was received a few days later, and 
the country were advised for the first time as to the views of 
the administration upon the Territorial question. The Presi- 
dent recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress 
the action taken by the people of California for admission into 
the Union. He also recommended that Congress should ab- 
stain from any action with respect to the Territory of New 
Mexico, as the people there would, at no distant period, pre- 
sent themselves for admission into the Union. This message 
was not calculated to quiet the storm. The administration 
was charged with having instigated the proceedings in Cali- 
fornia, and resolutions calling for information were introduced 
into both houses. These, after warm discussion, were adopted. 

The questions at issue were soon brought before the Senate 
in a variety of forms. On the 14th of January, Mr. Houston 
submitted a series of resolutions covering most of the subjects. 
On the 16th Mr. Benton introduced a bill proposing to Texas a 



128 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

reduction of her limits, and to pay her fifteen millions of dollars. 
On the same day Mr. Foote introduced a bill establishing ter- 
ritorial governments for California, Deseret, New Mexico, and 
to enable the people of San Jacinto (a new state to be formed 
out of Texas) to form a state government. And Mr. Butler, 
from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a Fugitive Slave 
Bill. On the 8th of January the resolutions of the State of 
Vermont upon the subject of slavery were presented, and the 
motion to print them was objected to. In December a resolu- 
tion tendering the apostle of temperance, Father Mathew, the 
privilege of the floor, was introduced, was debated — the debate 
turning exclusively upon the anti-slavery views of that gentle- 
man. 

On the 29th of January Mr. Clay submitted his famous se- 
ries of resolutions proposing a plan of settlement of all the dis- 
tracting questions. They were promptly discussed. 

On February 5th and 6th Mr. Clay addressed the Senate 
upon the subjects embraced in his resolutions. On the 13th 
of the same month the President communicated to the Senate 
the Constitution of the State of California. Mr. Benton sug- 
gested its reference to a select committee. Mr. Foote suggest- 
ed that it be referred to a select committee of fifteen, to be in- 
structed to consider all the questions relating to slavery in the 
territories, etc. Mr. Douglas moved to refer it to the Com- 
mittee on Territories, of which he was chairman. 

On February 25th Mr. Foote offered his resolution to refer 
all the pending resolutions, etc., upon the subject of the Terri- 
tories, Texas Boundary, California, etc., to a select committee 
of thirteen. He stated that it was his wish that this commit- 
tee should be constituted as follows : Mr. Clay, Chairman ; 
three Northern Whigs, three Northern Democrats, three South- 
ern Whigs, and three Southern Democrats. On the 28th of 
February Mr. Bell submitted a series of resolutions embracing 
a plan of compromise. 

In the mean time, from the first day the Senate had proceed- 
ed to legislative business, Mr. Hale had from time to time pre- 
sented petitions praying the prohibition of slavery in the Terri- 
tories, others praying its abolition in the District of Columbia, 
others remonstrating against the admission of slave states, etc., 
etc. The presentation of these petitions frequently led to very 
exciting discussions, sometimes consuming the entire day's sit- 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 129 

ting. They were generally stopped by an objection to their 
reception, and then by an affirmative vote upon laying the mo- 
tion to receive on the table. The debates on all these propo- 
sitions embraced all the questions involved in the complicated 
series. On the 7th of February Mr. Hale presented a memo- 
rial praying the dissolution of the Union. A debate upon its 
reception took place, in which Mr. Douglas defined his posi- 
tion upon the subject of the duty of Congress to receive peti- 
tions generally, and particularly upon the reception of petitions 
relating to slavery. The debate on this question was contin- 
ued several hours on several successive days. Mr. Douglas's 
remarks will be found elsewhere in this volume. 

Mr. Benton having moved to amend Mr. Douglas's motion 
to refer the President's message and the California Constitution 
to the Committee on Territories, by adding that said commit- 
tee be instructed to report a bill for the admission of Califor- 
nia, disconnected with any other subject of legislation, and this 
amendment having opened up on that motion a debate upon 
the general subject of slavery and the propriety of passing a 
compromise in one omnibus bill, Mr. Douglas, on the 2 2d of 
January, moved to take up from the table the memorial of the 
people of Deseret asking a state or territorial government, 
and refer it to his committee. An animated debate took place 
— the South generally urging the reference to the Judiciary 
Committee. The motion, however, was agreed to — yeas 30, 
nays 20. He then moved to refer the bill introduced by Mr. 
Foote to the same committee, and this motion was also agreed 
to — yeas 25, nays 22. The committee now had the entire sub- 
ject before them. The debates on the general subject con- 
tinued. On the 4th of March, Mr. Calhoun, who had been in 
failing health for some time, appeared in the Senate, and his 
last great speech was read to a crowded chamber by Mr. 
Mason. Three days later, on March 7th, Webster made his 
famous speech, and the spectre of the Wilmot Proviso was 
banished. From that day forth it lost its terrors, and a better 
feeling prevailed. There were no longer any fears of its adop- 
tion, and the attention was then directed to some broad, na- 
tional, and just principle which should be adopted as a final 
rule in all like cases. On March 14th and 15th Mr. Doug- 
las addressed the Senate upon the subject of the admission 
of California — a speech which, for argument and power, will 

F 2 



130 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

compare favorably with any delivered in Congress npon that 
question. 

On March 25th, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Terri- 
tories, reported bills as follows : 

" A bill for the admission of the State of California into the 
Union;" 

" A bill to establish the territorial governments of Utah and 
New Mexico, and for other purposes ;" which bills were read, 
ordered to a second reading, and ordered to be printed. 

In addition to all the resolutions and propositions before the 
Senate, the three leading questions of the compromise were 
now before the body in the shape of bills ready for legislative 
action. The struggle in the Senate for the select committee 
of thirteen was animated and protracted. For a long time it 
hung in doubtful balance. The friends of that measure desired 
to pass all the subjects embraced in one bill. To this there 
were many objections. Mr. Benton was particularly strenuous 
in his opposition to any proposition having for its object the 
connection of the admission of California with any other sub- 
ject. He declared it an indignity to couple her admission with 
any other measure. At every stage of the motion to raise the 
committee of thirteen, he presented his motion to except from 
the matters referred to said committee the question of the ad- 
mission of California. When his amendments were voted 
down in one form he proposed them in another. Mr. Douglas 
was one of those who had doubted the expediency of uniting 
the several measures in one bill. But, having succeeded in 
getting the matters before the Senate in separate bills, and as 
nothing could be done with either bill as long as a majority 
of the Senate desired a report from a select committee, he 
urged the friends of the California Bill to allow the committee 
to be raised, to abandon a struggle which could result only in 
a delay of action. Pending these measures, on the 31st of 
March Mr. Calhoun's death took place. It was not until the 
18th of April that the Senate came to a vote upon the motion 
to raise the select committee of thirteen, and before that time 
the several memorable scenes between Foote and Benton took 
place. The vote on raising the committee was, yeas 30, nays 
18. On the 19th of April the Senate proceeded to ballot for 
the members of the committee, and the following senators were 
elected : 



THE COMPEOMISE OF 1850. 131 

Mr. Clay, chairman ; Messrs. Cass, Dickinson, Bright, Webster, Phelps, 
Cooper, King, Mason, Downs, Mangum, Bell, Berrien. 

As soon as the committee was raised, Mr. Douglas persist- 
ently presented his motion to take up the bill for the admis- 
sion of California. On the day the committee was elected he 
made the motion making that bill the special order. He was 
sustained by Mr. Clay; but a committee of six senators having 
been appointed to accompany the remains of Mr. Calhoun to 
South Carolina, Mr. Clay said that he " wished some under- 
standing on the subject of taking up this California Bill with 
the senator from Illinois and the Senate." He then stated that 
the committee of six were about leaving the city, and he wish- 
ed some understanding that the bill, during the absence of 
these six members, should not be pressed to a vote. Mr. 
Douglas promptly responded that he would not feel authorized 
to ask a vote in the absence of the committee on a duty like 
that. His only object was to have the bill considered, and, 
when the Senate had arrived at the point for a test vote, he 
would defer that vote until the committee should return. To 
this Mr. Clay said : 

" Mr. Clay. That is exactly in conformity with the liberal, 
manly course of the senator, and, with that understanding, I 
hope the bill will be taken up." 

Mr. Clay gave notice on that same day that he would, while 
the bill was under consideration, move to add to it provisions 
for territorial governments and for the adjustment of the Texas 
Boundary ; and, in explanation, stated that the amendments he 
proposed to offer were " the bills reported by the senator from 
Illinois, and which have already been printed." Mr. Benton 
gave notice that he would resist all such amendments ; and on 
the 22d, his resolution "that the said committee (of thirteen) 
be instructed to report separately upon each different subject 
referred to it, and that the said committee tack no two bills 
of different natures together, nor join in the same bill any two 
or more subjects which are in their nature foreign, incoherent, 
or incongruous to each other," was taken up and debated. In 
the course of that debate, Mr. Cass, a member of the commit- 
tee, said : 

" Now, sir, I think it quite possible, yea, even probable, that 
the committee will not report any bill at all. The senator (Mr. 
Benton), then, is presupposing a state of things which may 



132 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

never occur at all, and which it will be quite time enough to 
discuss when it does. * * * 

" It is perhaps necessary that I should explain what I said 
a moment ago. I merely meant that, instead of reporting a 
specific bill or bills, it was quite possible that the committee 
may propose amendments to, or recommend the passage of 
bills now before the Senate." 

The probable course of the committee, as suggested by Mr. 
Cass, was the one favored by the distinguished chairman of 
that committee. It was not his intention then, and not until 
after his report was written, to report a bill that would include 
the admission of California or governments for the Territories. 
Whoever will turn to the report of the select committee will 
see that it recommends the passage of the bill reported from 
the Committee on Territories for that purpose, and that the 
bill reported from the same committee, establishing territorial 
governments for New Mexico and Utah, making proposals to 
Texas for the settlement of her boundaries, should be added 
by the Senate to the California Bill, and all passed as one meas- 
ure. In the report no mention is made of any bill agreed upon 
by the committee, except one to abolish the slave-trade in the 
District of Columbia. 

How Mr. Clay came to change his determination in this re- 
spect may possibly be explained by stating the substance of a 
conversation between him and Mr. Douglas. Mr. Clay made 
his report on Wednesday, the 8th of May. On Tuesday, the 
7th, Mr. Clay and Mr. Douglas met in the Senate Chamber, and, 
after an exchange of friendly greetings and some conversation 
on indifferent subjects, Mr. Douglas inquired of Mr. Clay when 
he would report his Compromise Bill. Mr. Clay said that he 
should present an elaborate report upon all the subjects before 
the committee, in which would be recommended that the Sen- 
ate should unite the two bills, California and Territorial, which 
Mr. Douglas had previously reported from the Committee on 
Territories, and pass them in one act ; but he should report 
no bill on those subjects from his committee. Mr. Douglas 
asked why Mr. Clay did not himself unite the two bills and 
report them from the select committee as their bill ; to which 
Mr. Clay promptly answered, that such a course would not be 
just or fair toward Mr. Douglas, the author of those bills, par- 
ticularly after having had all the labor, and having prepared 



THE COMPKOMISE OF 1850. 133 

thein in a form so perfect that he (Mr. Clay) could not change 
them in any particular for the better ; hence, continued Mr. 
Clay, as a matter of justice toward Mr. Douglas, he intended 
to recommend to the Senate to take up the bills as they stood, 
and, after uniting them, pass them without change. 

Mr. Douglas at once stated that he had no such pride in the 
mere authorship of the measures as to induce him to desire 
that the select committee, out of regard to him, should omit 
adopting that course which would or might possibly best ac- 
complish the great object in view. Moreover, there was an- 
other reason, which he regarded as of the very highest im- 
portance, why the select committee should report to the Sen- 
ate the bills united into one. It was his opinion they could 
never pass the two houses of Congress as a joint measure, be- 
cause the union of them would unite the Opposition to the 
several measures without uniting their respective friends ; the 
bill for the admission of California, as a separate measure, 
would receive all the votes from the North, and enough from 
the South to secure its passage ; while the Territorial Bills, if 
not connected with the California Bill, could receive nearly all 
the Southern votes, with a sufficient number from the North 
to secure their passage through both houses of Congress. 
For this reason, he urged that, if the bills were to be united at 
all, they should be united by the select committee, and in that 
form reported to the Senate as the action of that committee. 
If that course were adopted by the select committee, the Sen- 
ate would have the several measures before them in two forms 
— one as separate measures, and the other as a joint measure, 
and thus all the chances of success would be secured; for, 
in the event of the defeat of the joint measure, the friends of 
the Compromise could fall back upon the bills separately. If 
united in the Senate, and then defeated, all would be defeated. 

Mr. Clay acknowledged the full force of this reasoning, but 
repeated that to take the bills of Mr. Douglas and report them 
as the great Compromise Bill, prepared by tHe select commit- 
tee, would be unjust to their author, who was entitled to all 
the honor of preparing them. 

Mr. Douglas then said : " I respectfully ask you, Mr. Clay, 
what right have you, to whom the country looks for so much, 
and as an eminent statesman having charge of a great measure 
for the pacification of a distracted country, to sacrifice to any 



134 LIPE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

extent the chances of success on a mere punctilio as to whom 
the credit may belong of having first written the bills ? I, sir, 
waive all claim and personal consideration in this matter, and 
insist that the committee shall pursue that course which they 
may deem best calculated to accomplish the great end we all 
have in view, without regard to any interest merely personal 
to me." 

Mr. Clay (extending his hand to Mr. Douglas). "You are 
the most generous man living. I will unite the bills and re- 
port them ; but justice shall nevertheless be done to you as 
the real author of the measures." 

The next morning Mr. Clay presented his report, and also 
reported the bill subsequently known as the " Omnibus Bill," 
being a bill consisting of Mr. Douglas's two bills attached to- 
gether by a wafer. Extracts from subsequent debates will 
be found in this volume, and will show, to the satisfaction 
of all, who was the author of the compromise acts of 1850 re- 
lating to territorial questions. True to his promise, Mr. Clay 
subsequently bore honorable testimony to the ability, fairness, 
and patriotism displayed by Mr. Douglas throughout that long 
and memorable session. 

The only change made by the select committee in the Ter- 
ritorial Bill was to insert in the sections defining the powers 
of the Territorial Legislature the words " nor in respect to Af- 
rican slavery." The effect of this amendment was to deny to 
the Legislature of the Territories the privilege or authority to 
legislate upon the subject of African slavery. 

On May 13th Mr. Clay addressed the Senate in support of 
the bill. On the 15th, Mr. Douglas, with a view of saving 
time, by ascertaining at once the sense of the Senate as to 
whether the questions involved in controversy should be con- 
sidered upon the Omnibus Bill or upon the separate bills, 
moved, as a test question on that point, to lay Mr. Clay's bill 
on the table. The motion was rejected — yeas 24, nays 28. 
The Senate having thus decided to consider the general bill in 
preference to the separate measures, the former thenceforth, 
and until its fate was accomplished, occupied the consideration 
of the Senate to the exclusion of the bills of the Committee on 
Territories. 

Mr. Jefferson Davis moved to amend the bill so as to re- 
strain the Legislature from interfering " with those rights of 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 135 

property growing out of the institution of African slavery as 
it exists in any of the states of the Union." 

This amendment provoked considerable discussion. It was 
originally proposed on the 15th of May; on the next day it 
was modified so as to leave in the section the prohibition of 
any legislation in respect to African slavery, but declaring that 
nothing in the bill should be construed as preventing the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature from passing such laws or providing such 
remedies as may protect the owners of African slaves in said 
Territory in the enjoyment of their property, etc. On the 22d 
of May, at the suggestion of Mr. Pratt, Mr. Davis farther mod- 
ified his proposed amendment so as to declare that the Terri- 
torial Legislature shall not pass any law " to introduce or ex- 
clude African slavery;" providing also that nothing in the 
act contained should prevent the Territorial Legislature from 
" passing such laws as may be necessary for the protection of 
the rights of property of any kind w T hich may have been, or 
may be hereafter, lawfully introduced into said Territory." 

On the 3d of June the amendment was warmly debated ; 
but, as the question involved was renewed some weeks later, 
the extracts from the speeches made upon the question of the 
power of the Territorial Legislature to legislate upon the sub- 
ject of African slavery, both at this as well as the later pe- 
riod of the debate, will be found grouped together on a sub- 
sequent page. On the 5th of June, the amendment of Mr. 
Davis, which prohibited the Legislature from introducing or 
excluding slavery, but authorized them to pass laws to protect 
slave property there, was rejected — yeas 25, nays 30. The bill 
stood as reported by the committee of thirteen, including the 
words " nor in respect to African slavery." 

Mr. Berrien moved to amend by making the clause read, 
" But no law shall be passed interfering with the primary dis- 
position of the soil, nor establishing or prohibiting African 
slavery." And that amendment was agreed to — yeas 30, 
nays 27. 

Mr. Douglas then moved to strike out the words " nor es- 
tablishing or prohibiting African slavery." And the motion 
was rejected — yeas 21, nays 33, as follows : 

Yeas — Bradbury, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Corwin, Dickinson, 
Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Sew- 
ard, Shields, Sturgeon, Underwood, and Upham. 



136 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Nays — Atchison, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, 
Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Downs, 
Foote,' Hale, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, 
Pratt, Husk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Turney, Walker, Webster, Whit- 
comb, Yulee. 

So the bill stood with the prohibition on the powers of the 
Territorial Legislature. 

In the mean time the Wilmot Proviso, in every imaginable 
shape, was offered as an amendment to the bill, and always 
voted down. If every motion to insert it be not mentioned, 
the reader will not understand by the omission that it was not 
submitted on every possible occasion by its advocates and 
friends. Mr. Douglas, for reasons stated on a subsequent page, 
voted for these amendments whenever offered. 

The debate progressed. On the 14th of June, Mr. Turney, 
of Tennessee, moved to strike out all that part of the bill re- 
lating to the Texas Boundary. Lost — yeas 24, nays 27, the 
senators from Texas voting in the negative. On the 15th of 
June Mr. Soule moved to insert the following clause in that 
part of the bill relating to Utah : 

"And when the said Territory, or any portion of the same, 
shall be admitted as a state, it shall be received into the Union 
with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at 
the time of their admission." 

This amendment was debated for three days, and on the 
1 7th it was adopted by the following vote : 

Yeas — Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Bright, Butler, Cass, Clay, 
Clemens, Cooper, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, 
Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mason, Morton, Norris, 
Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Soule', Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, 
Underwood, Wales, Webster, Whitcomb, Yulee — 38. 

Nays — Baldwin of Connecticut, Chase of Ohio, Clarke of Bhode Island, 
Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton of New Jersey, Dodge of Wisconsin, Greene 
of Rhode Island, Hale of New Hampshire, Miller of New Jersey, Smith of 
Connecticut, Upham of Vermont, Walker of Wisconsin — 12. 

Pending this amendment, Mr. Douglas stated why a provi- 
sion of that kind had not originally been placed in the bill, and 
also the reasons why he had voted on several previous occa- 
sions for the Wilmot Proviso. 

He said : 

" I shall vote for this amendment, not because I believe it confers any new 
right upon the people of the Territories, or modifies the terms of any old right 
which they possess. I shall vote for it as the assertion of a principle which 
is already in the Constitution, and which I believe would be implied, and be 
equally valid, if not here expressed. I would not deem it necessary to ex- 






THE COMPROMISE OP 1850. 137 

press it again but for the fact that the amendment has been offered, and but 
for the farther fact that I have heard, to my surprise, the doctrine that the 
people, when they come to form a state government, have a right to do as 
they please in moulding their domestic institutions questioned in some quar- 
ters. 

"If it is questioned, I see no reason why we should not express, when it 
comes in our way, what we believe to be the true constitutional doctrine. 
I believe the people have a right to do as they please when they form their 
Constitution, and, no matter what domestic regulations they may make, they 
have a right to come into the Union, provided there is nothing in their Con- 
stitution which violates the Constitution of the United States. Believing 
that, I shall vote for the amendment, in order that the Senate may express 
its opinion in this bill. I have always held that the people have a right to 
settle these questions as they choose, not only when they come into the Union 
as a state, but that they should be permitted to do so while a Terri- 
tory. 

" If I have ever recorded a vote contrary to that principle, even as applica- 
ble to Territories, it was done under the influence of the pressure of an au- 
thority higher than my own will. Each and every vote that I have given 
contrary to that principle is the vote of those who sent me here, and not my 
own. I have faithfully obeyed my instructions, in letter and in spirit, to the 
fullest extent. They were confined to the prohibition of slavery in the Terri- 
tories while they remained Territories, and leaving the people to do as they 
please when they shall be admitted into the Union as states. The vote 
which I am now about to give is entirely consistent with those instructions. 
I repeat that, according to my view of this subject, all these vexed questions 
ought to be left to the people of the States and Territories interested, and that 
any vote which I have given, or may give, inconsistent with this principle, 
will be the vote of those who gave the instructions, and not my own." 

The part of the bill proposing terms to Texas for the ad- 
justment of the boundaries between that state and the Terri- 
tory of New Mexico was the most embarrassing and perplex- 
ing. It was debated almost every day. As Mr. Rusk said, it 
was the first thing discussed each morning, and the last at 
night. Mr. Clay had left a blank in the bill for the amount of 
money to be paid to Texas, and he was questioned and assail- 
ed in every way to name the sum with which he intended to 
fill that blank. He parried all efforts to draw him out on that 
subject, declaring that, when the bill had reached its last stage, 
he would move to fill the blank. As a matter of history, it 
may be here stated that the proper time never arrived, and 
the " omnibus broke down" with that blank unfilled. On the 
19th of June Mr. Underwood moved to strike out all the sec- 
tions of the bill relating to the Texas Boundary, and to insert 
a provision authorizing the determination of the boundary by 
a suit in the Supreme Court. This was eventually rejected. 
On the 20th Mr. Berrien moved to limit the representation of 
California in the House of Representatives to one member, and 



138 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

providing that that representative, as well as the senators, 
should be chosen after the passage of the bill. Upon this 
proposition Mr. Douglas vindicated the justice of allowing 
California her two members in the House, and of admitting 
them at once to their seats upon the passage of the bill. The 
motion was lost — yeas 12, nays 28. 

On June 24th and 25th Mr. Soule advocated with great 
power and eloquence an amendment postponing the admission 
of California until that state had by an ordinance relinquished 
all title or claim to tax, dispose of, or Interfere with the prima- 
ry disposal of the public domain by the United States within 
her limits ; that she would not interfere with the United States 
in the control of the mining regions, etc. ; that the navigable 
waters should be open and free to all citizens of the United 
States ; and that the southern boundary of the state shall be 
restricted to the line of 36° 30' north latitude. 

On the 26th, and again on the 28th, Mr. Douglas replied to 
this speech of Mr. Soule, demonstrating that the argument that, 
unless this ordinance was adopted by California previous to 
her admission, the public lands and mines would escheat to 
that state, was wholly unsound. His speech was thorough and 
complete. It reviewed the entire history of the policy, as well 
as the possessory right of the government of the United States 
to the public domain, wherever situated, whether in state or 
territory. The limits of this work will not admit the publica- 
tion here of this speech in full, and to abbreviate it would de- 
stroy its force. The speech was deemed so conclusive upon 
the points embraced in it that it was printed in pamphlet, and 
thousands of copies of it were circulated, particularly in Cali- 
fornia. 

The amendment was rejected — yeas 19, nays 36. 

Mr. Jefferson Davis about this period offered an amendment 
proposing to repeal or annul all the Mexican laws, customs, 
etc., which, existing previous to the acquisition of the territory, 
prohibited or abolished slavery. This was rejected — yeas 18, 
nays 30 ; every northern Democrat who voted voting in the 
negative. 

On the 9th of July — the intervening time having been oc- 
cupied in speeches mainly against the bill — Mr. Butler was ad- 
dressing the Senate, when he was interrupted by Mr. Webster, 
who, in appropriate terms, announced the dying condition of 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 139 

President Taylor. The Senate adjourned, and the considera- 
tion of the Compromise Bill was not resumed until the 15th of 
July. On that day it was taken out of Committee of the 
Whole and reported to the Senate, and the amendments were 
concurred in. Mr. Benton then commenced an active war upon 
the bill by proposing amendments, particularly to that part re- 
lating to the adjustment of the boundary of Texas. On July 
IV Mr. Webster made an elaborate speech in favor of the bill 
— the last speech delivered by him in the Senate. On the 22d 
the Senate was notified of the resignations of Messrs. Webster 
and Cor win, who had accepted places in Mr. Fillmore's cabi- 
net. They were soon succeeded by Messrs. Winthrop and 
Ewing, both opponents of the bill. 

Mr. King, of Alabama, moved to amend the bill by making 
the admission of California conditional with the establishment 
of her southern boundary on the line of 35° 30' north latitude. 
Mr. Jefferson Davis moved to make the line 36° 30'. 

Both propositions were rejected — 36° 30' by a vote of 32 to 
23, and 35° 30' by a vote of 37 to 20. 

Mr. Bradbury, of Maine, on the 23d of July moved to strike 
out of the bill all relating to the adjustment of the Texas bound- 
ary, and to insert a section providing for the appointment of 
commissioners by the United States and by Texas, who were 
to ascertain and agree upon a boundary, and report the same, 
which, if agreed to by the United States and by Texas, was to 
be binding upon both parties. 

Mr. Benton and other senators proposed various amend- 
ments to Mr. Bradbury's proposition, all of which were reject- 
ed, and finally that proposition, on the 29th of July, was reject- 
ed — yeas 29, nays 29 ; both senators from Texas voting in the 
negative. 

Mr. Seward submitted an amendment admitting New Mexi- 
co as a state, and supported it in a long speech which provoked 
an angry and excited debate. This was rejected — yeas 1, 
nays 42. 

Mr. Bradbury then renewed his amendment, having slightly 
modified it. The debate was renewed, and proceeded with 
great feeling, the bill evidently having approached a crisis. 
Mr. Walker moved, on the 30th, that the bill be laid on the ta- 
ble ; lost — yeas 25, nays 32. Mr. Dawson moved to amend 
the proposition of Mr. Bradbury by providing that during the 



140 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

proceedings of the Boundary Commission the territorial gov- 
ernment provided in the bill should not go into operation in 
that part of the Territory lying east of the Rio Grande, being 
the territory in dispute. 

This proviso was agreed to, and Mr. Bradbury's proposition, 
as amended, was then inserted in lieu of the sections of the bill 
containing the proposals to Texas for the adjustment of her 
boundary — yeas 30, nays 28. 

POWER OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES — AGAIN. 

At this stage of the bill Mr. Norris moved to strike out the 
words which prohibited the Territorial Legislature from pass- 
ing any law " establishing or prohibiting African slavery," the 
object of the amendment being to leave the Territorial Legisla- 
ture as free to pass laws upon that question as upon any other 
"rightful subject of legislation." In order to show that the 
object in placing in the bill the restriction was to deny the 
power and the authority of the Territorial Legislature to legis- 
late upon that matter, and the object in moving to strike it out 
was to recognize and admit such a power and authority in the 
Legislature, and that these objects were fully understood by 
all parties, and also to show what was the final decision of the 
Senate upon this point, which has become so important in the 
political discussions of the present day, extracts from some of 
the speeches delivered upon the subject are here inserted. 

FROM THE DEBATE ON MR. DAVIS'S AMENDMENT ME, DOUGLAS, 

OF ILLINOIS. 

I wish to say one word before this part of the bill is voted upon. I must 
confess that I rather regretted that a clause had been introduced into this 
bill providing; that the territorial governments should not legislate in respect 
to African slavery. The position that I have ever taken has been, that this 
and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy 
of the Territories ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and 
that we ought to be content with whatever way they may decide the ques- 
tion, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we 
have, and know much better what institutions suit them than we, who have 
never been there, can decide for them. I would, therefore, have much pre- 
fei-red that that portion of the bill should have remained as it was reported 
from the Committee on Territories, with no provision on the subject of slavery 
the one way or the other ; and I do hope yet that that clause in the bill will 
be stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, that it gives no strength to the bill; I 
am satisfied, even if it did give strength to it, that it ought not to be there, 
because it is a violation of principle — a violation of that principle upon 

WHICH WE HAVE ALL RESTED OUR DEFENSE OF THE COURSE WE HAVE 



THE COMPEOMISE OP 1850. 141 

taken on this question. I do not see how those of us who have taken the 
position which we have taken (that of non-interference), and have argued in 
favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, 
can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which 
we urged in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles 
set forth by the honorable senator from Michigan in that letter which is 
known as the "Nicholson Letter." We are required to abandon that plat- 
form ; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves, 
and to adopt the opposite doctrine, and what for ? In order to say that the 
people of the Territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem 
adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a 
provision as that can be acceptable either to the people of the North or South. 
Besides, it settles nothing; it leaves it a matter of doubt and uncertainty 
what is to be the condition of things under the bill ; and, whatever shall be 
ascertained to be the condition in respect to slavery, it may turn out that, 
while the law is held to be one way, the people of the Territory are unanimous 
the other way. And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people in opposi- 
tion to their unanimous opinion ? Or are the people, by our action here, to 
be deprived of a law which they unanimously desire, and yet have no power 
to remedy the evil ? I, for one, think that such ought not to be the case. 
In my own opinion, I have no doubt as to what the law would be under that 
provision ; but if I were left to the exercise of my own judgment and to 
carry out my own principles, I desire no provision whatever in respect to the 
institution of slavery in the Territories. I wish to leave the people of the Ter- 
ritories free to enact just such laws as they please in respect to this institu- 
tion. On this one point I am not left to follow my own judgment nor my 
own desire. I am to express the will of my constituents which has been 
solemnly pronounced. My vote, sir, will be in accordance with their instruc- 
tions ; but I desire that that vote shall be given upon the direct question ; to 
come fairly up to these instructions, and not to this indirect mode, which 
settles nothing, whether it is adopted or rejected. 

ME. DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI. 

******** 
A word now to the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas). It is to his argu- 
ment that I address myself. The difference between that senator and my- 
self consists in who are a people. The senator says that the inhabitants of 
a Territory have a right to decide what their institutions shall be. When ? 
By what authority ? How many of them ? Does the senator tell me, as he 
said once before, from the authority of God ? Then one man goes into a 
Territory and establishes the fundamental law for all time to come. It would 
then be unquestionably the unanimous opinion of what that law should be ; 
and are all the citizens of the United States, joint owners of that Territory, to 
be excluded because one man chooses to exclude all others who might come 
there ? That is the doctrine carried out to its fullest extent. I claim that a 
people having sovereignty over a Territory should have power to decide what 
their institutions shall be. That is the Democratic doctrine, as I have al- 
ways understood it, and under our Constitution the inhabitants of the Terri- 
tories acquire that right whenever the United States surrender the sovereign- 
ty to them by consenting that they shall become states of the Union, and 
they have no such right before. The difference, then, between the senator 
from Illinois and myself is the point at which the people do possess and may as- 
sert this right. It is not the inhabitants of the Territory, but the people as 
a political body — the people organized — who have the right; and on be- 
coming a state, by the authority of the United States, exercising sovereign- 
ty over the Territory, they may establish a fundamental law for all time to 



142 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

come. Then, again, the senator states what, during the last presidential 
canvass, was his position in relation to the doctrine of non-intervention. I 
am sorry to hear him state it as he has. If non-intervention means that the 
government shall refuse protection to property, then, sir, upon what basis 
rests the right of taxation ; whence arises the claim to personal service of 
citizens ? There must be mutual obligations — support from one, protection to 
the other. Whatever section has its property excluded from this protection 
by the government has a right, from that day forth, to withhold all farther 
support. What claim, sir, has the government to the assistance and support 
of the citizens if it refuses them protection ? And what are all the great 
principles of our Constitution if they are transferred to a government with- 
out power to use them ? If this federal government, to which the states have 
transferred their authority over the property belonging to them in the Terri- 
tories of the United States, is stopped by such a principle as is here declared 
by the senator from Illinois from exercising that authority, I would ask what 
is the value of the trust ? It stands at the mercy of every group of men who 
may find themselves conglomerated in any Territory of the United States, and 
is rendered unable to discharge the trust which has been conferred upon it. 
Willing or unwilling, as the case may be, to render that justice to one part 
of the owners of the public domain which another receives, and all have an 
equal right to demand. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator from Mississippi puts a question to me as to 
what number of people there must be in a Territory before this right to gov- 
ern themselves accrues. Without determining the precise number, I will as- 
sume that the right ought to accrue to the people at the moment they have 
enough to constitute a government ; and, sir, the bill assumes that there are 
people enough there to require a government, and enough to authorize the 
people to govern themselves. If, sir, there are enough to require a govern- 
ment, and to authorize you to allow them to govern themselves, there are 
enough to govern themselves upon the subject of negroes as well as concern- 
ing other species of property and other descriptions of institutions. Your 
bill concedes that government is necessary. Your bill concedes that a rep- 
resentative government is necessary — a government founded upon principles 
of popular sovereignty, and the right of the people to enact their own laws ; 
and for this reason you give them a Legislature constituted of two branches, 
like the Legislatures of the different states and territories of the Union ; you 
confer upon them the right to legislate upon all rightful subjects of legisla- 
tion except negroes. Why except negroes ? Why except African slavery ? 
If the inhabitants are competent to govern themselves upon all other subjects, 
and in reference to all other descriptions of property — if they are competent 
to regulate the laws in reference to master and servant, and parent and child, 
and commercial laws affecting the rights and property of citizens, they are 
competent also to enact laws to govern themselves in regard to slavery and 
negroes. Why, when you concede the fact that they are entitled to any gov- 
ernment at all, you concede the points that are contended for here. But the 
senator from Mississippi says that he is contending for a principle that re- 
quires Congress to protect property, and that I am contending against it. 
Not at all, sir ; I desire to give them such a government as will enable them 
to protect property of every kind and description. I wish to make no excep- 
tion. He desires to make an exception. 

Mr. Davis. Not at all. 

Mr. Douglas. The government contended for authorizes them to protect 
property in horses, in cattle, in merchandise, and property of every kind and 
description, real and personal ; but the senator from Mississippi says that you 
must exclude African slavery. 

Mr. Davis. No, sir, he said no such thing: 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 143 

Mr. Douglas. He excepted — 

Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. With the senator's permission, I will explain. 
He is attacking the bill, but I had nothing to do with the bill except to try 
and better it. 

Mr. Douglas. I begin to discover my error. I am holding the senator re- 
sponsible for the work of the committee of thirteen. 

Mr. Davis (in his seat). It was a very grave error. 

Mr. Douglas. I was making war upon him by mistake. I must pay my 
respects to the committee of thirteen. They make the distinction that the 
people of the Territory are to govern themselves in respect to the right in all 
kinds of property but African slaves. I want to know why this exception ? 
Upon what principle is it made ? What is the necessity for it ? Is it not as 
important as any other right in property ? Why, then, should it be excepted 
and reserved ? And, sir, if you reserve it, to this Congress ? No, sir ; you 
deny it to the people, and you deny it to the government here ; and here is 
to be one species of property, one description of institution — 

Mr. Doivns. Will the senator allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly ; I yield the floor. 

Mr. Downs. I ask the senator whether he did not vote for and approve of 
the Clayton Compromise Bill ? 

Mr. Douglas. That would not prove a great deal. I suppose if I did that 
it would not prove that this was right or wrong ; but I will answer the sena- 
tor's question. I struggled then as I do now for the principle that I am con- 
tending for. That bill was hatched up in my absence, from a necessity which 
all will acknowledge. I got back here just time enough to vote on the ques- 
tion, and, after all other things had failed — after the principle I contended 
for had failed, I did vote for that bill rather than to have no government at 
all. I preferred that bill to leaving the people, as they have been left, with- 
out a government. But, sir, while that was the case, I did not approve then 
of that principle, and I do not approve of it now ; and I put the question to 
the senator from Louisiana (Mr. Downs), whether he can not give me a bet- 
ter answer, for this exception as to the rights of the people, than that I had 
from necessity, when forced upon me by others, voted for a bill containing 
such a clause, rather than to leave the people without a government, and have 
the country kept in a state of strife and agitation. 

Mr. Downs. I merely wish to say, in reply to the senator, that the reasons 
why I think this exception ought to be made were contained in the remarks 
which I made the other day. He will find all I have to say on the subject 
there. 

Mr. Douglas. Now, Mr. President, I have a word to say to the honorable 
senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis). He insists that I am not in favor of 
protecting property, and that his amendment is offered for the purpose of pro- 
tecting property under the Constitution. Now, sir, I ask you what authority 
he has for assuming that ? Do I not desire to protect property because I wish 
to allow these people to pass such laws as they deem proper respecting their 
rights in property without any exception ? He might just as well say that I 
am opposed to protecting property in merchandise, in steam-boats, in cattle, 
in real estate, as to say that I am opposed to protecting property of any other 
description ; for I desire to put them all on an equality, and allow the people 
to make their own laws in respect to the whole of them. But the difference 
is this : he desires an amendment which he thinks will recognize the institu- 
tion of slavery in the territories as now existing in this country. I do not be- 
lieve it exists there now by law. I believe it is prohibited there by law at 
this time, and the effect, if not the object of his amendment, would be to in- 
troduce slavery by law into a country from which I think a large majority of 
this Senate are of opinion it is now excluded, and he calls upon us to vote to 



144 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

introduce it there. The senator from Kentucky, who brought forward this 
Compromise, tells us that he can never give a vote by which he will introduce 
slavery where it does not exist. Other senators have declared the same thing, 
to an extent which authorizes us to assume that the majority of this Senate 
will never extend slavery by law into territory now free. What, then, must 
be the effect of the adoption of the provision offered by the senator from Mis- 
sissippi ? It would be the insertion of a provision that must infallibly defeat 
the bill, deprive the people of the Territories of government, leave them in a 
state of anarchy, and keep up excitement and agitation in this country. I 
do not say, nor would I intimate, that such is the object of the senator from 
Mississippi. I know that he has another and a different object — an object 
which he avows. That object is to extend the institution of slavery to this 
Territory ; or, rather, as he believes it to be already carried there by law, to 
continue its legal existence in the Territory. 

After discussing the question of the power of Congress to 
prohibit slavery in the Territories, Mr. Douglas continued : 

But I do say that, if left to myself to carry out my own opinions, I would 
leave the whole subject to the people of the Territories themselves, and allow 
them to introduce or to exclude slavery, as they may see proper. I believe 
that that is the principle upon which our institutions rest. I believe it is one 
of those rights to be conceded to the Tenitories the moment they have gov- 
ernments and Legislatures established for them ; because, by establishing a 
government and giving them power to form a Legislature, you admit that 
they are competent to govern themselves ; otherwise they would not be au- 
thorized to establish a Legislature and confide all their rights to it, with the 
exception of this one of the institution of slavery. For these reasons, and 
others which I will not enlarge upon, I am opposed to any provision in this 
bill prohibiting the people of the Territory from legislating in respect to Afri- 
can slavery. I would desire to see it stricken out ; and I repeat that I can 
not conceive how the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and those who think 
with him, and acted with him during the last campaign, can go for a provi- 
sion of this kind without abandoning the position which they assumed ; and 
upon that point I have the senator from Mississippi with me. I recollect 
that early in the session he made a speech here, in which he declared that 
he put that construction on the letter of the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) 
during the campaign, and that it made him a little lukewarm in his support 
of that gentleman. I do not believe, sir, that the Senate can agree upon any 
principle by which a bill can pass giving governments to the Territories in 
which the word "slavery" is mentioned. If you prohibit — if you establish — 
if you recognize — if you control — if you touch the question of slavery, your 
bill can not, in my opinion, pass this body. But the bill that you can pass 
is one that is open upon these questions, that says nothing upon the subject, 
but leaves the people to do just as they please, and to shape their insti- 
tutions according to what they may conceive to be their interests both for 
the present and the future. 



MR. KING, OF ALABAMA (AFTERWARD VICE-PRESIDENT) . 






Sir, I do not think there is a solitary gentleman on the other side, belong- 
ing to a particular party, that would be in favor of giving to these Territorial 
Legislatures this full power to pass laws either for the prohibition or the in- 
troduction of slavery. They would be afraid of its introduction; and the 
probability is that their fears would not be entirely groundless. I, sir, am 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 145 

opposed to giving to the Territorial Legislatures any power either to prohibit 
or to introduce "it. I believe that the power does not exist on the part of 
Congress, and, in that respect, I differ with the senator from Illinois in toto. 
Sir, his argument is a Free-soil speech ; it is the Wilmot Proviso, so far as 
the argument goes, as to giving to the Congress of the United States the 
power of regulating every description of property which the citizens of the 
country possess who choose to emigrate there. The senator went vastly be- 
yond what I have heard before, because it was then confined to slavery. But 
he would prohibit all property, because, forsooth, the government of the Uni- 
ted States prevented traders from going into the Indian country and selling 
certain articles to these unfortunate beings. Sir, the first territorial govern- 
ments which we established were simply for the protection of persons and 
property, and consisted of a governor and council. And are senators pre- 
pared to say that this governor and his council, if governments should be or- 
dained for these Territories, should have the power of regulating property 
entirely ? Sir, I never did agree with my friend from Michigan in regard to 
what is supposed to be the construction of the Nicholson Letter. I never did 
believe that a Territorial Legislature possessed any power whatever but such 
as is delegated to it by the Congress of the United States ; and the power 
which it did possess simply related to the protection of persons and property, 
and the punishment of crime. Sir, what do you require of them? That 
they shall pass no law that is not to be submitted to Congress for its appro- 
bation, leaving them strictly to the control of the Congress of the United 
States in every act that they may pass. And yet gentlemen get up at this 
day, and advocate on the floor of the Senate the monstrous doctrine that these 
Territorial Legislatures, consisting of a mere handful of men, should make 
laws to affect every description of property. I would greatly prefer that my 
friend would leave out this provision, which by some is considered unneces- 
sary. The section, it appears to me, effects every thing that ought to be 
desired, and it leaves no idea that any thing is covered up in it which ought 
not to be there. 

Mr. Douglas. I must say, Mr. President, that it appears to me that my 
friend from Alabama has not shown his usual courtesy in the remarks he has 
just made. He has been pleased to say that my speech was a Free-soil speech, 
and a Wilmot Proviso speech. And why ? because I made an argument in 
favor of the Territorial Bill in the Senate, neither adopting nor rejecting any 
provision in relation to slavery in the Territories. In other words, I made 
an argument in favor of the doctrine advocated by my friend from Michigan 
(Mr. Cass), so far as the territorial governments were concerned. The sen- 
ator from Alabama says that he never agreed with my friend from Michigan 
on this point, and that my argument is Free-soilism and Wilmot Provisoism. 
He then changes his position with his eyes open, having advocated the Wil- 
mot Proviso at the last presidential election, and he became an advocate of it 
with his eyes open on that subject. 

Mr. King. I suppose the senator, in making this statement, means noth- 
ing personal. 

Mr. Douglas. Not at all. 

Mr. King. I said nothing about the argument as to the power of the Terri- 
torial Legislature to pass such laws. The portion to which I referred was 
that portion in which he contended that Congress had all power over the Ter- 
ritories — to exclude from, or admit into, or control property in those Terri- 
tories. 

Mr. Douglas. Now, sir, we will turn to that point. My argument was in 
favor of passing a Territorial Bill without any provision on the subject of sla- 
very. I undertake to say that three months ago the senator from Alabama 
• was in favor of — 

G 



146 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The Vice-President. It is not in ordet to make any personal allusions. 

Mr. Douglas. It can not be out of order to tell the truth in a respectful 
manner. 

Mr. King. I am still in favor of establishing territorial governments with- 
out saying any thing on the subject of slavery, so far as the introduction of it 
into or the exclusion of it from the Territories is concerned. That is what I 
was in favor of three months ago, and is what I am in favor of still. 

Mr. Douglas. I stated that that has been a doctrine unanimously enter- 
tained, so far as I have understood it — that territorial bills were to be passed 
silent upon the subject of slavery, and that no provision was to be made upon 
the subject. I understand that that has been the unanimous doctrine ; that 
is what I now advocate ; that is what I made an argument in favor of. I 
did not propose to say in the bill that the Territorial Legislature should have 
the power to legislate on the subject of slavery, or that Congress should have 
power to prohibit or establish it in the Territories. I proposed to strike out 
that prohibition of the Territorial Legislature on the subject, and, that being 
done, it would read that territorial legislation should extend to all rightful 
subject of legislation within their boundaries. I proposed to make it an 
open question, so that the people themselves could do with it as they pleased. 
Now, sir, let me compare notes with the senator, and see who is in favor of 
the Wilmot Proviso and Free-soil doctrine on this point. He desires a pro- 
hibition on the part of Congress that the Territorial Legislatures shall not 
legislate in respect to slavery. Why, sir, the laws of Mexico prohibited 
slavery in those territories when we acquired them from that country, and, 
according to the law of nations, the laws of Mexico are still in force. And 
what is it that the senator proposes ? why, it is to continue those laws in force, 
and to prevent the people themselves from repealing them. And that is the 
very doctrine of the senator from Wisconsin, which he wants to continue and 
retain in the bill. That was the reason it was voted into the bill by the 
committee of thirteen, the senator from Vermont giving the casting vote to 
put it in, because it was a perpetuation of the prohibition of slavery forever. 
Sir, I wish to strike it out, because I do not wish to perpetuate any institu- 
tion against the will of the people. I wish to leave them free to regulate 
their own institutions in their own way, without compelling them to establish 
an institution there, on the one hand, if they do not wish, nor preventing 
them, on the other, from establishing it if they do wish it. Sir, I only made 
those remarks which I thought were courteous. I had made a speech in fa- 
vor of the doctrines I have always held, and I did not expect to see the sen- 
ator from Alabama show that irritability of temper, and to hear him use ep- 
ithets instead of attempting to reply to an argument which he knew to be 
frankly and candidly made. I made no uncourteous remark. Now, sir, I 
admit that I would rather take the doctrine as it is to be found in the bill of 
the senator from Kentucky, than one which would stultify the whole Dem- 
ocratic party. It is now clear that the object is to stultify the whole Dem- 
ocratic party of 1848. It is now intended to rebuke the doctrine we advo- 
cated at that time. The senator from Mississippi said he was opposed to it, 
the senator from Alabama says he too is opposed to it ; the doctrines of the 
senator from Michigan are to be abandoned, new doctrines are to be raised, 
and the supporters of the doctrines enunciated in 1848 are to be smoothed 
down and required to vote for a measure which is intended to stultify and 
disgrace the whole Democratic party. That, sir, is the question which we 
are to meet, and, if we must meet it, let us meet it openly and like men. 
The senator from Kentucky was manly enough to say that he was opposed 
to this measure ; he was manly enough to rise above all political rivalries, 
and to say that it was wrong to put the question on such a basis. We can 
stand where we stood in 1848, and where we have ever stood upon this ques- 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 147 

tion. But, sir, when we are required to retrace our steps and renounce 
what we have alleged to be our principles, that becomes quite a different 
question. 

ME. CASS, OF MICHIGAN". 
******** 
Now, with respect to the amendments. I shall vote against them both ; 
and then I shall vote in favor of striking out the restriction in the bill upon 
the power of the territorial governments. I shall do so upon this ground. 
I was opposed, as the honorable senator from Kentucky has declared he was, 
to the insertion of this prohibition by the committee. I consider it inexpe- 
dient and unconstitutional. I have already stated my belief that the right- 
ful power of internal legislation in the Territories belongs to the people. You 
have the right to govern, but not to legislate for them — the doctrine for which 
our fathers contended, and which brought about our separation from England. 
But, sir, how is it possible to vote for this interdict without conceding the 
constitutional right of Congress to pass the Wilmot Proviso ? Congress can 
only insert this clause upon the assumption that they have full power over 
the Territories — poAver to admit, power to exclude, as well as power to say that 
the Territorial Legislature may do one or the other, for neither can be exer- 
cised but by virtue of full jurisdiction. 

The action of the Senate upon the pending proposition has 

already been stated — the restriction upon the powers of the 

Territorial Legislature was voted in. 



ME. PHELPS, OF VERMONT. 

I had determined, Mr. President, not to open my mouth in the course of 
this debate, and I should not do so now were it not for the allusion just 
made to me by the senator from Mississippi. It is very true that the provi- 
sion in the Clayton Bill, as it has been termed — the same proposed now to be 
stricken out of this bill — originated in the committee with me. But, after 
what has fallen from the senator from Mississippi, I deem it due to myself to 
explain the reasons why I shall now vote against the proposition to keep that 
in the bill which, on that occasion, I advocated. * * * 

But the bill now before us presents the subject in a very different light. 
We propose now to create a Legislature to be elected by the people of the 
Territory, representing the wishes and feelings of that people, and responsi- 
ble to that people for their legislative course. Under these circumstances, 
Mr. President, the subject assumes, in my judgment, a very different aspect. 
It is no longer a question whether the appointees of the President are to be 
left to regulate this important subject, but it becomes a question whether the 
Legislature of the Territory, elected by the people of that Territory, shall have 
the control over it. This distinction is, in my judgment, material ; and, 
therefore, if the proposition were now to erect such a government as was 
contemplated by that bill in 1848, 1 would retain the position I then occu- 
pied. But I feel bound now to say that I can not take from a Legislature, 
elected by the people of these Territories, the control over their domestic re- 
lations. It is wrong in principle. It so happens that those of us at the 
North who have heretofore insisted upon the exercise of the power of Con- 
gress over this subject to exclude slavery from these Territories are now in a 
position to permit the people of the Territories to have their own way, and 
regulate the subject as may suit themselves. It is unnecessary for me to ex- 
plain how this change of position has been produced. It is enough for me 
to say now that I regard this subject of the question of the prohibition of 



148 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

slavery as a fit subject of local legislation, and one which should be given 
exclusively to the local Legislatures. 

When it is proposed to-day to deny to the people in these Territories, or 
their immediate representatives, elected by themselves, the control over the 
subject, I must say I can not sustain the proposition. 

* * * I do not know but that it is necessary. for me to ask pardon for 
having addressed the Senate at this time. I did not intend to express my 
opinion at all ; but, after the allusion made to me by the senator from Mis- 
sissippi, it became necessary ; because, on the occasion referred to by him, I 
submitted this very proposition to prevent the Territorial Legislature from 
acting on this subject, and on the present oecasion I am against the proposi- 
tion. The reason why I have changed my position is simply the fact that 
the restriction in 1848 was upon a government created by the executive of 
the United States, and not by the people of the Territory. The restriction 
now proposed is upon the immediate representatives of that people. 

ME. PEATT, OF MAEYLAND. 

Mr. President : As this amendment is up, I hope I may be allowed to say 
a few words, so that my constituents can understand my position. 

The great doctrine of the South, as I understand it, and the only true 
ground upon which the South can stand, is the doctrine of non-intervention. 
Now what I understand by non-intervention is the denial to the executive 
and legislative authority of the federal government of all power over the sub- 
ject of slavery any where and every where. That is the non-intervention 
upon which I have been taught to rest the rights of the South ; that is the 
non-intervention upon which I am now willing to rest them — that neither 
the executive nor legislative branches of the federal government have the 
power, in any way whatever, to interfere with the subject of domestic slavery 
any where. And I am therefore perfectly willing that the amendment which 
was originally adopted should be stricken out, as proposed by my friend from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Norris). But there is another reason which, it seems 
to me, must render this provision, in the eyes of every one, inoperative, if it 
continue in the bill. You have this morning adopted an amendment by 
which the Territorial government established by the bill is not to operate, in 
prsesenti, within the larger portion of the territory claimed as New Mexico. 
Therefore, in consequence of that restriction, there could be no legislation in 
reference to the subject of slavery within that Territory at the present time. 

With regard to the other Territory, Utah, slaves are already held there ; 
and if you give to the people of that Territory power to regulate it — which 
they would have if this clause is stricken out — they would legislate in favor 
of that Southern institution in which we are interested. I therefore, for one, 
as a Southern man, standing up for the rights of the South as much as any 
man here, am willing that this clause should be stricken out, more particu- 
larly when it will gain some votes for the bill. 

ME. TTJENEY, OF TEISTNESSEE. 
********* 

Sir, if the pending motion prevails, the people of New Mexico will have 
the power to exclude the Southern people from the territory to be acquired 
from Texas, and to spread over it the Wilmot Proviso. I would as soon vote 
for that proviso here. I believe it would be more magnanimous to vote for 
it here than to fight behind the bush in this way. 

Now what was fair two years ago, when we had a Southern President — 
what was then sound policy, just and equitable to all sections — seems now, 
according to some gentlemen, to be unfair, unjust, unsound. There is a 
change of circumstances. A different set of officers will be sent there. A 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 149 

set of officers, entertaining very different opinions to what would have been 
sent two years ago, are now to be sent by the present executive, who will 
most heartily desire to exclude Southern men. If this bill is to pass they 
will be excluded, especially if this motion shall prevail. They will be ex- 
cluded in less than six months after the law shall become final and go into 
operation. 

The first Territorial Legislature, considering the public sentiment there, 
will exclude the South forever. For these reasons, 1 can not vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from New Hampshire. 

MR. BERRIEN", OF GEORGIA. 

I wish the Senate to understand that the direct effect of sanctioning this 
amendment will be to invest the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico with 
the power to allow or prohibit slavery — to allow if they exist, or to re-enact 
if they do not, the Mexican laws. 

MR. CLAY, OF KENTUCKY. 

I heard with great pleasure the senator from Vermont (Mr. Phelps). I 
regret that he has not favored the Senate with saying more than he has done 
upon this subject. One of the most interesting speeches that I have read was 
pronounced by that senator two years ago, and which really gave me more 
information upon this subject than I have derived from any thing which I 
have heard during this session. But, sir, I have not risen to detain the Sen- 
ate. I have risen to say a few words only on the proposition before the Sen- 
ate ; and I do think that, if my Southern friends, and my Northern friends 
too, will only listen, if I am not entirely incorrect in the views I propose to 
present, they will concur in the motion made by the senator from New Hamp- 
shire to strike out this clause. The clause is an interdiction imposed by Con- 
gress upon the local Legislature either to introduce or to exclude slavery. 
Now, sir, it appears to me to be perfectly clear that Congress has no such 
power according to the Southern doctrine. That doctrine is one of clear and 
clean non-intervention. The amendment in the bill, on the contrary, as- 
sumes the power to exist in Congress, which is denied ; for, if Congress pos- 
sesses the power to impose this interdiction, Congress has the power to im- 
pose the Wilmot Proviso. The only difference is, that the action of Congress 
in the one case is direct, and that the action of Congress in the other case is 
indirect. It appears to me, therefore, that upon the great principle upon 
which Southern gentlemen have rested the support of their rights, they ought 
to oppose the exercise of this power by Congress to interdict the local Legis- 
lature. Sir, it is a little remarkable that, by the one side of the Union, whose 
interest it should be to preserve the clause, the amendment is opposed ; and 
that the other side of the Union, whose principles, according to my humble 
conception, should lead them to oppose the clause which is proposed to be 
stricken out, are in favor of it. In point of interest, the North should be for 
retaining the clause, because if, as they suppose, and as I believe, there is at 
this moment an abolition of slavery in the Territories, this clause serves to 
continue that abolition of slavery ; therefore it is to their interest to retain 
this clause, because it would give an additional security to the exclusion of 
slavery, which they desire. I know that my Northern friends who are anx- 
ious to exclude this clause by the adoption of this amendment, go upon a 
higher principle than mere interest. They go upon the very principle which 
the South has contended for. They say — for upon this subject I have con- 
versed with them freely — that they are aware of the advantage to their inter- 
est which might result from the retention of the clause, but that it is in con- 
travention of the principle for which they have contended on behalf of South- 
ern interests, and that is the principle of non-intervention on the subject of 



150 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

slavery. They will sacrifice their interests for the preservation of the great 
principle upon which they are willing to stand with their Southern friends — 
the principle of non-intervention ; and which, if the amendment prevails, is 
the principle which pervades the entire bill, running through it from first to 
last. I know, sir, that another principle has been contended for by Southern 
gentlemen of great eminence, and that principle is, that the Constitution of 
the United States confers upon the slaveholder the right to carry his slaves 
into these Territories. If so, where is the necessity of this interdiction ? The 
Constitution is paramount and supreme ; and if the Legislature of the Terri- 
tory were to pass any law in violation of the Constitution, that law unques- 
tionably would be null and void from the moment of its passage ; and, as 
suggested by the senator from Maryland, there is a suspension of the opera- 
tions of this bill in reference to the only Territory in contest — New Mexico — 
this side of the Rio Grande, until this effort at compromise shall be success- 
ful, or thwarted and defeated. It appears to me, therefore, that upon the 
very principle for which Southern gentlemen have stood up, they should 
strike out this clause from the bill, and leave it a clear and indisputable bill 
of non-intervention, from the enacting clause to the end. 

ME. CASS, OF MICHIGAN. 

But, quitting the subject of legislative inconsistency, and adverting to the 
immediate proposition, let me ask what you are doing. What ? You are 
passing a law for the organization of a government for the people of New 
Mexico, not for the regulation of their own domestic concerns — those rela- 
tions of life which belong essentially to every free community. You do not 
undertake to tax them. It would be a monstrous assumption, at which ev- 
ery American would revolt. You do not undertake to regulate the relations 
of husband and wife, or parent and child, or guardian and ward, nor to pro- 
nounce upon the other internal questions which belong to them. We should 
all revolt also at such an attempt. Well, sir, it is not in the power of the 
most acute political casuistry to point to any difference in principle between 
the exercise of these powers and the attempt to take from the people the 
right to regulate at their pleasure the relation of master and servant, includ- 
ing the condition of slavery. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Berrien) has 
advanced views which certainly struck me with surprise, in this country and 
in this age of the world. He said that the Territorial Legislature were the 
agents of this government, and that we had a right to do any thing here 
which they could do there. Mr. President, such a proposition as that strikes 
at the very root of human liberty. It is far better suited to the meridian of 
Constantinople than to that of Washington. It assumes for us full power to 
do as we please with the people of a remote community, without representa- 
tion, with separate interests, and of whose concerns we are wholly ignorant. 
Why, this is the very pretension which led to our Revolution — the very pre- 
tension which Lord North advanced, and which our fathers resisted. The 
claim was, and it was embodied in a memorable act of Parliament, that "his 
majesty in Parliament had the right to bind the colonies in all cases whatso- 
ever ;" and here, in the American Senate, the whole doctrine of our revolu- 
tionary struggle is cast aside, and the very power assumed for a republican 
Legislature which was denied to a monarchical one — the power to bind the 
Territories in all cases whatsoever. I will not argue such a doctrine as that. 
I appeal to our whole history for its refutation. The Territorial Legislatures 
our agents ! and who made them so ? What law of God or man has so dealt 
with human rights as to authorize such a pretense? What said our fathers 
upon this general subject ? Why, they acknowledged the right of the Brit- 
ish government to institute governments for the colonies, to establish the 
general outlines, but not to regulate their internal domestic concerns. Such 



THE COMPEOMISE OF 1850. 151 

a claim, where there is no representation, change the terms as we may, is the 
very essence of tyranny. It was for this right of self-government that the 
patriots of the Revolution entered into a fearful contest with the mightiest 
nation on the face of the earth, and out of which, by the blessing of God and 
by their undaunted firmness, they came triumphantly, securing their own lib- 
erties, and ours too, so long as we have wisdom and patriotism to maintain 
them. And I must confess that nothing has astonished me more, in all the 
discussions that have grown out of this controversy, than the coolness with 
which gentlemen rise here and maintain the right of Congress to legislate 
for these distant Territories in all cases whatsoever, annihilating human free- 
dom, and establishing arbitrary power by the same pretension. If this is not 
tyranny, tell me what it is. Is your claim founded on the Constitution? 
Put your finger on the place and show it. There is not the first word which, 
expressly or by implication, gives it to you. Even the right to organize gov- 
ernments is not there. But if you assume that as a matter of necessity, what 
necessity is there for you, not to govern these distant people, but to legislate 
for them, and to take from them the very first attribute of freedom? Do 
you found this claim upon your superior wisdom — upon your capacity to judge 
what is suited to the people better than they can judge for themselves ? I 
ask you where ever there was an arbitrary government which had not the 
same self-sufficient opinion of its own wisdom, and of the ignorance of the 
people ? Lord North thought so and said so. The sultan thinks so ; and at 
Vienna and Petersburgh to doubt such a clear proposition is to insure a res- 
idence in Siberia, or to exhaust life in Austrian dungeons. 

Pending the decision of the Senate on these bills, the sen- 
ators elect from the State of California were in daily attend- 
ance in the lobby of the Senate. They heard all these debates 
— debates upon a bill so deeply important to their state, and 
upon the passage of which, it was believed, depended their ad- 
mission as senators of the United States. The senator from 
Illinois had the California Bill under his especial charge. He 
was its friend and advocate — its champion and defender. He 
proclaimed his views in a tone of voice that would enable a 
deaf man to hear them, and in language so plain that a simple- 
ton could understand him. His speeches were published daily, 
and were read by all. The senators from California were not 
deaf, nor were they simpletons ; they read the papers, and read 
and understood the sentiments of every man in the Senate 
upon the Territorial question. Yet, nine years later, one of 
those senators, who had heard Douglas make the speeches we 
have quoted above, told the people of California that he had 
voted to remove Judge Douglas from the committee where he 
had matured the bill for the admission of California, because, in 
a speech delivered in 1858, that man Douglas had declared that 
he was in favor of allowing the people of a Territory, through 
their own Legislature, to exclude slavery if they did not desire 
it in the Territory ! Wonderful awakening to the cause of 



152 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

justice! In 1859, William M. Tor win, senator from the State 
of California, declared Stephen A. Douglas to be a political 
outcast, who had been displaced from the chairmanship of a 
committee because he had expressed an opinion that the people 
of a Territory might exclude slavery by the action of their Ter- 
ritorial Legislature ; and in 1850 the same William M. Gwin 
selected from the sixty members of the United States Senate 
the same Stephen A. Douglas as the most appropriate person 
to present his credentials to the United States Senate, not- 
withstanding he had, in the hearing of said Gwin, a few weeks 
previously, in the speeches we have quoted, expressed the 
same opinions most unequivocally, broadly, and distinctly. 
Wonderful change of opinion! Remarkable falling of the 
scales ! 

THE DESTEUCTION OF "THE OMNIBUS." 

On the 31st of July, after the adoption of Mr. Norris's mo- 
tion, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, desiring to get rid of the pro- 
viso of Mr. Dawson, attached to the proposition of Mr. Brad- 
bury, moved to strike out all those sections of the bill relating 
to the establishment of a territorial government for New Mex- 
ico, intending, when that motion was agreed to, to move to 
reinsert all of them again except the Dawson amendment, in 
lieu of which he said he would offer a proviso to the effect 
that the territorial government provided for New Mexico by 
the bill should not go into effect until March, 1851. Under 
this proposition, if the Texas Boundary was not settled by 
March, '51, the government of New Mexico would go into 
operation on both sides of the Rio Grande, extending over, 
of course, the territory claimed by Texas. The motion to 
strike out was agreed to — yeas 33, nays 22. Mr. Pearce then 
moved to insert as above stated. A motion to postpone the 
bill indefinitely was made and lost — yeas 27, nays 32. A 
long debate ensued, and another motion to postpone indefi- 
nitely resulted — yeas 29, nays 30; the senators from Texas 
voting in the affirmative. 

Mr. Yulee, of Florida, moved to strike out of Mr. Pearce's 
amendment all that related to Texas, being the Bradbury 
proposition, and this motion was agreed to — yeas 29, nays 28. 
A motion to indefinitely postpone was again made, and lost by 
a majority of one. 



THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 153 

The question was, after much debate and many rejected mo- 
tions to adjourn, etc., taken on Mr. Pearce's motion to restore 
the sections of the bill relating to New Mexico, and was de- 
cided hi the negative — yeas 25, nays 29. So Texas and New 
Mexico were both put out of the omnibus. 

Mr. Walker moved to strike out all relating to Utah, leav- 
ing California alone in the bill, but that motion failed. 

Mr. Atchison then moved to strike out all of the bill relating 
to California, or, as he expressed it, " to turn her out of the 
omnibus." This was rejected by a tie vote, 29 to 29. 

Motions to adjourn, to postpone indefinitely, etc., etc., were 
made in rapid succession, but all failed ; the Senate was de- 
termined to finish the bill that night. 

At last the Senate reconsidered the vote rejecting Mr. 
Atchison's motion, and then, by a vote of 34 to 25, struck out 
all that related to California. And Utah was the only pas- 
senger left in the omnibus ! 

An incident took place at this time which has derived a pe- 
culiar significance from events that have occurred in the legis- 
lative history of Congress since that time. It being necessary 
to alter the proposed boundaries of Utah, in order to include 
some settlement whose- exact locality had to some extent been 
more definitely ascertained since the original framing of the 
bill, Mr. Douglas moved to fix the southern boundary upon 
the line of 37° north latitude. 

Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, moved to insert 36° 30' in lieu 
of 37°. 

Mr. Douglas accepted the amendment as a modification of 
his own. 

Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, said : " I wish to say a word 
as a reason why I shall vote against the amendment. I shall 
vote against 36° 30' because I thhik there is an implication in 
it. (Laughter.) I will vote for 37°, or 36° either, just as it is 
convenient, but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here 
is an attempt in this bill — I will not say it is the intention of 
the mover — to pledge this Senate and Congress to the imag- 
inary line of 36° 30', because there are some historical recol- 
lections connected with it in regard to this controversy about 
slavery. I will content myself with saying that I never will, 
by vote or speech, admit or submit to any thing that may bind 
the action of our legislation here, to make the parallel of 36° 

G2 



154 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

30' the boundary-line between slave and free territory. And 
when I say that, I explain the reason why I go against the 
amendment." 

The amendment of Mr. Douglas was rejected, yeas 26, nays 
27, and among those voting in the negative — voting never to 
admit or submit to any thing that might bind the action of 
Congress to make the Missouri Compromise line of 36° 30' the 
boundary between slave and free territory — were Chase of 
Ohio, Dayton of New Jersey, Hale of New Hampshire, Ham- 
lin of Maine, and Seward of New York, who, five years there- 
after, denounced the repeal or removal of that "imaginary 
line" when proposed by the same senator who now moved its 
recognition! In 1850 these abolitionists refused to vote to 
make it the southern boundary of a territory, lest doing so 
might, by implication, be an admission of the " historical rec- 
ollections" of that line. In 1854, no men were more loud or 
more vehement than these same men in glorifying the "his- 
torical recollections" of the " sacred compact" and " time-hon- 
ored compromise !" 

The amendment having been rejected, the following remarks 
were made : 

Mr. Douglas. "It is necessary to make some change of 
boundary in order to include the Mormon settlements. Thir- 
ty-seven degrees will include them as well as 36° 30'. I move 
to insert ' 37°.' " 

Mr. Hale. "Agreed. I have no objection." 

Mr. Mason. " I move to amend the amendment of the sena- 
tor from Illinois by inserting ' 36°' instead of 4 37°.' " 

Mr. Hale. " I have no objection." 

Mr. Mason's amendment was rejected, and "37°," as pro- 
posed by Mr. Douglas, was adopted. 

The struggle to defeat the bill was protracted some time 
longer, but at last the question was put on ordering it to a 
third reading, and the yeas and nays stood as follows : 

Yeas — Atchison of Missouri, Badger of North Carolina, Benton of Mis- 
souri, Berrien of Georgia, Bradbury of Maine, Bright of Indiana, Butler of 
South Carolina, Cass of Michigan, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson of Georgia, 
Dickinson of New York, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas of Illinois, Downs of Lou- 
isiana, Felch of Michigan, Houston of Texas, Hunter of Virginia, Jones of 
Iowa, King of Alabama, Mason of Virginia, Morton of Florida, Norris of 
New Hampshire, Pratt of Maryland, Sebastian of Arkansas, Shields of Illi- 
nois, Soule of Louisiana, Spruance of Delaware, Sturgeon of Pennsylvania, 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 155 

Turney of Tennessee, Underwood of Kentucky, "Wales of Delaware, Yulee of 
Florida— Total, 32. 

Nays — Baldwin of Connecticut, Bell of Tennessee, Chase of Ohio, Clarke 
of Rhode Island, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton of New Jersey, Dodge of 
Wisconsin, Ewing of Ohio, Greene of Rhode Island, Hale of New Hamp- 
shire, Hamlin of Maine, Miller of New Jersey, Pearce of Maryland, Seward 
of New York, Smith of Connecticut, Upham of Vermont, Walker of Wiscon- 
sin, Winthrop of Massachusetts — Total, 18. 

The next clay the bill was passed without a division. The 

title was amended to read, " A Bill to establish a Territorial 

Government for the Territory of Utah ;" and the bill was sent 

to the House. 



CHAPTER IX. 

WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPEOMISE. 

On the 1st of August, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Doug- 
las, after debate, proceeded to the consideration of the bill and 
amendment reported by him for the admission of California. 
An amendment was proposed to limit her southern boundary 
by the line of 36° 30', which was rejected. The bill was de- 
bated daily until the 12th, when it was ordered to a third read- 
ing, and on the next day was passed — yeas 34, nays 18. 

On August 7th Mr. Pearce introduced a bill making pro- 
posals to Texas for the establishment of her northern and west- 
ern boundaries, its general features and objects being the same 
as those contained in that part of the Omnibus Bill relating to 
this question ; and, after discussion and amendment, the bill, 
on August 9th, passed the Senate by yeas 30, nays 20. 

As soon as the bill for the admission of California had pass- 
ed, Mr. Douglas moved to take up the bill to establish a Ter- 
ritorial Government for New Mexico. The motion prevailed, 
and that bill was considered by the Senate, and on the 15th 
of August was read a third time and passed — yeas 27, nays 10. 

The Fugitive Slave Bill was taken up on August 15th ; was 
ordered to a third reading on the 23d by a vote of yeas 27, 
nays 12, and passed on the 26th without a division. 

On the 28th of August the Bill to Suppress the Slave-trade 
in the District of Columbia, being the last of the series of 
measures recommended by Mr. Clay's committee of thirteen, 
was taken up in the Senate. During its consideration Mr. 
Seward moved as a substitute a bill abolishing slavery in the 



156 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

District of Columbia, which proposition was debated at great 
length. The amendment was rejected, but five senators vot- 
ing for it, viz., Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Hale, Seward, and 
Upham. 

THE EXCLUSION OF FREE NEGROES BY THE STATES. 

During this debate, the powers and authority of South Caro- 
lina and Louisiana to prohibit immigration and residence of 
negroes within their respective limits was elaborately discussed, 
the debate at times becoming animated, and frequently very 
personal. Upon that point Mr. Douglas said : 

' ' My own state has been frequently referred to in this debate as contain- 
ing a provision in her Constitution similar to the one complained of in South 
Carolina, Louisiana, and other states. Illinois has a provision in her Con- 
stitution making it the ditty of the Legislature to provide efficient means for 
keeping all negroes from coming into the state who were not natives of or 
residents in the state at the time of the adoption of that instrument. Here, 
then, is a clear case of legislation of this description in a free state. We, 
too, have a constitutional provision upon this subject ; and, before that consti- 
tutional provision was adopted by an overwhelming majority of our people — 
it having been submitted to the people separately, and independent of the bal- 
ance of the Constitution, so as to get an expression of the popular voice on 
the subject — even before that provision was adopted, our laws provided that 
if a negro came into the state he was required to procure a white man to go 
his security for good behavior, and in the event of his failing to give the se- 
curity he was hired out to service for one year ; if, at the end of the year, he 
still failed to give it, he was hired out for another year ; and so on until he 
could find some white person to go security for his good behavior, and that 
he would not become a charge upon the public. Such has been the legisla- 
tion of my own state from the time she was first admitted into the Union, 
and I presume it has been the same in other free states. Those provisions 
were rigidly enforced ; and now, when I hear that Massachusetts can not get 
a trial of the constitutional question involved in that legislation, I will assure 
the senators from that state that, if they will come to Illinois, we will furnish 
them all the facilities to test the constitutional question. We are willing to 
have the right tested so far as we are concerned. The trial, then, can take 
place between two free states of the Union, where there will be no sectional 
prejudices, no hostile feelings incited, and where we can have a fair trial 
upon the constitutional questions involved. We believe that we have a right 
to pass all those laws that we deem necessary to the quiet and peace of our 
own community. These laws are passed among us as police regulations ; they 
are executed as such. There is no difficulty in having a trial there, and an 
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States ; and then we can see 
whether we have the right or not. We believe that we have the right. We 
border upon slave states upon two sides. We do not wish to make our state 
an asylum for all the old, and decrepit, and broken down negroes that may 
be sent to it. We desire every other state to take care of her own negroes, 
whether free or slave, and we will take care of ours. That law was adopted 
for the purpose of preventing other states inundating and colonizing Illinois 
with free negroes. We do not believe it to be wise and politic to hold out 
inducements for that class of people to come and live among us. Those who 
have been born in the state, or who were resident there at the time of the 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 157 

enactment of these laws, are protected in the enjoyment of all their civil 
rights, but they are not placed upon an equality with the whites. They are 
not permitted to serve on juries, or in the militia, or to vote at elections, or 
to exercise any other political rights. They are recognized as inhabitants, 
and protected as such in all their rights of person and property. While we 
protect those who are there, and their posterity, we do not intend to be inun- 
dated by colonies of negroes from other states, sent to us in order to get rid 
of the trouble of them at home. 

It is for this reason that Illinois has adopted this system of legislation, and, 
having adopted it, we do not desire to insist on it unless it is consistent with 
the Constitution of the United States. We are willing to have that question 
tested. We invite any gentleman who deems it right to oppose these laws 
to bring his suit. We will furnish him all facilities for having the question 
decided, and then we shall know whether the right exists or not. I would 
much have preferred this question should have arisen between two of the free 
states of the Union, when there would have been no prejudices or sectional 
jealousies, or other improper motives to enter into it to bias our judgment 
and excite our passions, than to see it arrayed here as one of the sectional 
questions between the North and the South." 

On the 16th of September this bill was passed — yeas 33, 
nays 19. All these bills were acted upon favorably by the 
House, and were approved by the President. 

Pending the question on the passage of this last bill, the fol- 
lowing remarks were made in the debate : 

Mr. Benton. I wish this morning to make a remark which is called for by 
what has taken place. I am one of those who insisted, both as a matter of 
right and as a matter of expediency, that certain bills, commonly called the 
Omnibus, should be separated, and treated on their own merits. I was an- 
swered by arguments of expediency, that the bills would pass sooner all to- 
gether, and that thereby a better effect would be produced in settling the 
public mind. I disagreed with those arguments, and I then brought upon 
myself a great deal of censure in some parts of the country, and especially in 
my own state. The thing is now over ; the votes have been taken, and the 
results tell what history will tell, that I was right in every thing that I said. 
We have had votes upon every subject, and, when separated, every subject 
passed — passed quickly, without a struggle, and by a great majority ; and the 
effect on the public mind has been just as sedative as if the whole dose had 
been taken at once ; and, sir, when we come to look into the yeas and nays 
on the four leading measures, the admission of California, the Territorial 
government for Utah and New Mexico, and the settlement of the Texan 
Boundary question, we find that the yeas who voted for all the four measures 
amount to just seventeen ! and, counting in one who was absent (Mr. Clay), 
they would have been just eighteen — eighteen out of sixty. That there may 
be no mistake about it, I will read the names, so that, if I am wrong in any 
particular, I may be corrected. Those who voted for all the measures are 
Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dodge, Dickinson, Douglas, Felch, 
Houston, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Shields, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, and 
Whitcomb — just seventeen, and the one absent would make eighteen. And 
that I hold to be the true strength of the Omnibus Bill, as proved by the re- 
sult when every memberw as at liberty to vote precisely as he thought right, 
uninfluenced by any other consideration than what belonged to the bill itself. 
Then, with respect to the committee of thirteen, I find there were only five 
of them voting for the whole of these measures ; and I will read their names, 



158 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

so that, if there be any mistake, I may be corrected : they were Messrs. 
Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dickinson, and Dodge of Iowa. So that there were 
only five of the committee out of thirteen who voted for all of these bills ; one 
of them (Mr. Webster) being absent by reason of accepting a cabinet appoint- 
ment, and another for his health. Now, sir, the majority by which these 
bills passed severally were these : Utah by a majority of eighteen ; Texas 
Boundary by a majority of ten ; California by a majority of sixteen ; and New 
Mexico by a majority of seventeen. I give these results for the purpose of 
justifying myself in standing out for what I considered to be a parliamentary 
law in originally wishing to separate all these bills, and I now say that the 
result has confirmed every thing I said upon this floor. 

Mr. Dodge of Iowa. I rise for the purpose of correcting the senator from 
Missouri. I wish to say, as a historical fact, that I was not one of the com- 
mittee of thirteen. 

Mr. Benton. Ah ! then that makes my position so much the stronger, and 
reduces the number to four out of the whole thirteen. 

Mr. Davis of Mississippi. While gentlemen are dividing the honors that 
result from the passage of these bills, either in a joint or separate form, I 
have only to say that, so far as I am concerned, they are welcome to the 
whole. I do not represent that public opinion which required the passage 
of them, either jointly or separately. If any man has a right to be proud of 
the success of these measures, it is the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas). 
They were brought before the Senate by the committee, which it is claimed 
has done so much for the honor of the Senate and the peace of the country, 
merely stuck together — the work of other men, save and except the little bill 
to suppress the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. I merely wish to say 
that, so far as the public opinion of the community which I represent has been 
shadowed forth in public meetings and in the public press, it has been wholly 
adverse to the great body of these measures. I voted for one — that which 
the senator from Virginia originated, and which was modified in the Senate 
till I thought, as far as we could make it so, it became efficient for the pro- 
tection of our rights. That was the only one which met my approval. 



ME. DOUGLAS ON THE COMPEOMISE AFTEE ITS ADOPTION. 

During the summer and fall of 1851 an animated contest for 
governor had taken place in Mississippi ; Mr. Foote had been 
the candidate of those who in that state approved those meas- 
ures, and he had been elected. His duties as governor did not 
commence until January ; he therefore appeared in the Senate 
at the opening of the session in 1851-'2, and on the 4th of 
that month submitted a resolution declaring that, in the opin- 
ion of Congress, the measures of adjustment adopted in 1850 
were a settlement of the questions embraced in them, and 
which ought to be respected and acquiesced in, etc. 

Immediately after the adjournment of Congress after the 
passage of the compromise measures in 1850, Mr. Douglas re- 
turned to Illinois. The Northern country had been greatly 
agitated and excited by the misrepresentations of the terms, 
character, and requirements of the Fugitive Slave Act. It was 



WHAT BECAME OP THE COMPROMISE. 159 

vehemently denounced, and had but few willing or competent 
defenders. When he arrived in Chicago, that city was in a 
tempest of abolition fury. The excitement was general, and 
the vast majority of the people had been led to believe that 
the act was really and truly of the infamous character that was 
represented by the abolitionists. The city council, yielding to 
the storm, had passed resolutions denouncing the act as a vi- 
olation of the Constitution of the United States and of the law 
of God, and those senators and representatives who voted for 
it, and also those who were absent, and, consequently, did not 
vote against it, as traitors, Benedict Arnolds, and Judas Iscar- 
iots. The council also released the " citizens, officers, and po- 
lice of the city" from all obligation to assist or participate in 
the execution of the law, and declared that " it ought not to 
be respected by any intelligent community." On the next 
night a mass meeting of the citizens was held for the purpose 
of approving and sanctioning the action of the Common Coun- 
cil, and organizing violent and successful resistance to the exe- 
cution of the law. A committee reported to this meeting a 
series of resolutions more revolutionary in their character, and 
going to a greater extent in resisting the authority of the fed- 
eral government than even those of the Common Council. 
Numerous speeches in support of the resolutions were received 
with boisterous and furious applause, pledging their authors 
to resist even unto " the dungeon and the grave." 

Mr. Douglas appeared upon the stand, and stated that, in 
consequence of the action of the Common Council and the 
phrensied excitement which seemed to rage all around him, he 
desired to be heard before the assembled people of the city in 
vindication of all the measures of adjustment, and especially 
of the Fugitive Slave Law. He said he would not make a 
speech that night, because the call for the meeting was not 
sufficiently broad to authorize a speech in defense of those 
measures ; but he would avail himself of that opportunity to 
give notice that on the next night he would address the peo- 
ple of Chicago upon these subjects. He invited men of all 
parties and shades of opinion to attend and participate in the 
proceedings, and assured them that he would answer every 
objection made, and every question which should be propound- 
ed, touching the measures of adjustment, and especially the 
Fugitive Bill. After farther discussion, and much confusion 



160 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and opposition, the meeting was induced to adjourn, and hear 
Mr. Douglas's defense before they would condemn him. In 
the mean time, the excitement continued to increase, and the 
next night (October 23) a tremendous concourse of people as- 
sembled — by far the largest meeting ever held in the city — and 
Mr. Douglas delivered a speech in defense of the Fugitive Slave 
Act and other measures. The meeting then resolved unani- 
mously to faithfully carry into effect the provisions of the Fugi- 
tive Slave Law, and to perform every other duty and obliga- 
tion under the Constitution of the United States. The meeting 
also adopted, with only eight or ten dissenting voices, a reso- 
lution repudiating the action of the Common Council, and then 
adjourned with nine cheers — three for Douglas, three for the 
Constitution, and three for the Union. 

In the debate on the resolution of Mr. Foote, Judge Doug- 
las entered into an explanation of the causes which produced 
his absence at the time when the vote was taken on the pas- 
sage of the Fugitive Slave Law, and also of his votes for the 
Wihnot Proviso. Although these explanations were made 
more than a year subsequent to his speech before the Chicago 
meeting, it is deemed appropriate to include them here, and to 
follow them up by the speech which is so frequently referred 
to in them. This speech embraces a concise history of his 
previous action upon the subject of slavery. 

On the 23d of December, 1851, Mr. Foote's resolution being 
under consideration, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate as fol- 
lows: 

WHY HE DID NOT VOTE FOR THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 

The senator from Texas (Mr. Houston), in the course of his speech, took 
occasion to say that he was the only senator now holding a seat upon this 
floor who voted for all the measures of compromise. That may be so, for 
aught I know to the contrary. But the inference drawn from that remark, 
and the distinct idea conveyed by it, do great injustice to me, and perhaps to 
other senators. I voted, sir, for all the measures of the compromise but one ; 
and I undertake to say, in regard to that one, that it was well known to the 
Senate before the measure passed, and at the time it passed, and has been 
distinctly proclaimed to the country since, that I would have voted for the 
Fugitive Slave Law if I could have been in the Senate at the time, and that 
I was anxious to be here for the purpose of casting that vote. I say it was 
distinctly known, because I had so declared in debate prior to the passage of 
that act ; because every senator on both sides of the chamber who conversed 
with me knew that I was friendly to the measure ; and because, when I re- 
turned home, before my own constituents, I assumed the responsibility of an 
affirmative vote upon the bill. Yes, sir, the imputation has been repeatedly 
made by implication on this floor, and in express terms by the partisan jour- 



WHAT BECAME OP THE COMPROMISE. 161 

nals, that all those whose names are not recorded on the passage of the bill 
dodged the question ! Whatever political sins I may at any time have com- 
mitted, I think I may safely assert that no senator ever doubted my willing- 
ness to assume the full measure of responsibility resulting from my official po- 
sition. The dodging of votes — the attempt to avoid responsibility — is no 
part of my system of political tactics. And yet, sir, the special organ of the 
administration has on several occasions accused me, in connection with the 
distinguished senator from Michigan, with having dodged the vote on this 
bill. In order to put this accusation to rest, once for all, now and forever, I 
have concluded to give a detailed account of the circumstances which occa- 
sioned my absence at the time the bill passed, although it may subject me to 
the mortification of exposing my private and pecuniary affairs to the public 
view. I had a pecuniary obligation maturing in New York for near four 
thousand dollars, in payment of property which I had purchased in Chicago. 
Apprehending that my public duties with reference to these very compromise 
questions might render it improper to leave the city when the day of pay- 
ment arrived, I made an arrangement with Mr. Maury, President of the 
Bank of the Metropolis, to arrange the matter for me temporarily until my 
official duties would enable me to give it my personal attention. Feeling 
entirely secure under this arrangement, I thought no more of it until, on the 
day the debt became due, I received a note from Mr. Maury, expressing his 
deep regret and mortification that, in consequence of the unexpected absence 
of a majority of the directors of his bank on that day, he was unable to carry 
out the arrangement. I thus found myself suddenly placed in the position 
in which I was compelled to go to New York instantly, or to suffer my note 
to be protested, and the commercial credit of my endorser to be greatly im- 
paired. I immediately passed around the chamber, and inquired of several 
senators on each side friendly to the Fugitive Bill whether I could venture 
to be absent three or four days for the purpose of attending to this item of 
business, and I received from them the uniform answer that the discussion 
would continue at least a week, and probably two weeks longer, before the 
voting could begin. Relying implicitly upon this assurance, I went from the 
Senate Chamber directly to the cars, and, riding all night, arrived in New 
York the next day. Meeting several Illinois friends there, I was enabled to 
meet the obligation, and avoid a protest during the three days' grace allowed 
me by law. While dining with these friends at the Astor House on the day 
I had concluded my business, one of them alluded to the fact that the Fugi- 
tive Bill had been ordered to be engrossed for a third reading in the Senate. 
I expressed my surprise, and doubted the correctness of the statement. He 
then showed me the paper containing the telegraphic announcement, when I 
immediately rose from the table, and told my friends that I must leave for 
Washington that afternoon, in order to be able to vote for the bill on its final 
passage the next day. I left New York in the five o'clock train that after- 
noon, and, after riding all night, on my arrival here the next day, I found 
that the final vote had been taken the day previous. I immediately consulted 
with my colleague, now present (Mr. Shields), who authorizes me to say that 
he distinctly recollects the conversation in which I expressed my deep regret 
that I could not have arrived here in time to vote for the bill, and that I in- 
tended then to ask of the Senate permission to explain the cause of my ab- 
sence ; in reply to which my colleague suggested that such an explanation 
would be entirely unnecessay, for the reason that it was well known to the 
Senate and the country that I was in favor of the bill ; and for the further 
reason that in all probability the bill would undergo some amendment in 
the House of Representatives, which would require its being returned to the 
Senate for concurrence, when I would have an opportunity not only of speak- 
ing, but of voting for the bill. I acquiesced in this suggestion of my col- 



162 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

league, and for that reason made no explanation at that time. A few days 
afterward, as you well know (Mr. Shields being in the chair), and as many 
other senators may recollect, I was taken ill, and rendered incapable of being 
in the Senate but a few times during the residue of the session. I was con- 
fined to my bed for several weeks, extending beyond the adjournment, hav- 
ing been rendered a cripple by a surgical operation an one hip. So soon as 
I was able to be removed, I was taken home under the care and kind atten- 
tion of one of my colleagues of the House of Representatives. Every where 
on my route I found the most boisterous and determined opposition to the 
Fugitive Law; but nowhere was the excitement so fierce and terrific as at 
Chicago, where I had recently taken up my residence. There the press and 
the pulpit had joined in the work of misrepresentation and denunciation. A 
spirit of determined resistance had been incited, and seemed to pervade the 
whole community. The Common Council of the city, in its official capacity, 
had passed resolutions denouncing the Fugitive Slave Law as a violation of 
the law of God and the Constitution of the United States, calling upon the 
police of the city to disregard it, and the citizens not to obey it. The next 
night a meeting of 2000 people assembled ; and in that meeting, in the midst 
of the most terrific applause, it was determined to defy "death, the dungeon, 
and the grave," in resistance to the execution of the law. I walked into 
that meeting, and from the stand gave notice that on the next night I would 
appear there and defend every measure of the Compromise, and especially 
the Fugitive Slave Law, from each and every objection urged to it, and I 
called upon the entire people of the city to come and hear me. I told that 
body of men. there assembled, in the face of their denunciations and of their 
threats, that I Avas right and they were wrong, and if they would come and 
hear me I would prove it to them. 

The next night, in the presence of 4000 people, with the city council and 
the abolitionists occupying positions in front of the stand, which was partially 
surrounded in the rear by a large body of armed negroes, including many 
fugitive slaves, I stood, and made the speech which I now hold in my hand, 
and which I caused to be laid upon the table of every senator and represent- 
ative at the opening of the last session of Congress. In that speech, if any 
senator will take the trouble to read it, he will find that I assumed the re- 
sponsibility of an affirmative vote on the passage of the law, and made the 
same explanation of the causes of my absence that I have given to-day, and 
called upon the gentlemen whose names I have stated to the Senate as hav- 
ing been in New York with me when the vote was taken, and who were in 
the meeting when the Chicago speech was made, to confirm my statement in 
regard to my absence, and my wish at that time to vote for the law. You 
will also find in that speech that I vindicate the law in respect to both its 
constitutionality and necessity ; that I defend it as a whole, and in all its 
parts ; that I answer eveiy objection that has ever been urged against it. 
The objections relating to the right of trial by jury, to the writ of habeas cor- 
pus, to records from other states, to the fees of the commissioners, to the 
pains and penalties, to the " higher law" — every objection which the ingenu- 
ity and fanaticism of abolitionism could invent, was fully and conclusively 
answered in that speech — at least to the satisfaction of that vast assemblage 
of people. I am extremely reluctant to speak of the effect of my own 
speeches ; but it is a part of the history of that transaction, that the meeting, 
comprising three fourths of all the legal voters of the city, a majority cf 
whom had the night previously pledged themselves to open and violent re- 
sistance, after the speech was concluded, unanimously adopted a series of reso- 
lutions in favor of sustaining and carrying into effect every provision of the Con- 
stitution and laws in respect to the surrender of fugitive slaves. The resolu- 
tions were written and submitted to the meeting by myself, and cover the en- 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 163 

tire ground. I will only detain the Senate while I read one or two of them, 
and refer to the pamphlet copy of the speech for the whole series. (See 
Chicago Speech.) 

It only remains for me to state that the same city council assembled on 
the next night, and repealed their nullifying resolutions by a vote of twelve 
to one. 

Now, Mr. President, I have given you a detailed account of my course in 
relation to the Fugitive Law. I have no comments to make upon it. I sub- 
mit the facts, and leave the Senate and country to draw their own conclu- 
sions. These facts are not now submitted for the first time. They are con- 
tained in the pamphlet copy of the Chicago speech which I hold in my hand, 
and which, I repeat, was laid on the table of every senator and representa- 
tive more than a year ago, and fifty thousand copies were distributed by sen- 
ators and representatives to every portion of the Union. I may also be per- 
mitted to add that, so far as my knowledge or belief extends, this was the 
first public speech ever made in a free state in defense of the Fugitive Law, 
and the Chicago meeting was the first public assemblage in any free state 
that determined to support and sustain it. At Chicago the reaction com- 
menced. There rebellion and treason received their first check, the fanat- 
ical and revolutionary spirit was rebuked, and the supremacy of the Consti- 
tution and laws asserted and maintained. I claim no credit for the part I 
acted. I did no more than my duty as a citizen and a senator. I claim to 
have done my duty, and for that I was entitled to exemption from the re- 
peated charges by the special organ of the administration, and other partisan 
prints, of having dodged the question. I never dodge a question. I never 
shrink from any responsibility which my position and duty justly devolve 
upon me. I never hesitate to give an unpopular vote, or to meet an indig- 
nant community, when I know I am right. My political opponents in my 
own state have never made such a charge against me, and I feel that upon 
this point I can appeal to the Senate with perfect safety for a unanimous 
verdict in my favor. 

WHY HE VOTED EOR THE WILMOT PROVISO. 

Mr. President, while I am engaged in the work of self-defense, I will refer 
to one other point. I have recently seen it stated in several papers that at 
some time, and on some occasion, I had been the advocate and supporter 
of the Wilmot Proviso. This charge, upon investigation, will be found to 
be as unjust and unfounded as that in regard to the Fugitive Law. In or- 
der to put the question to rest and beyond dispute forevei-, I will take a brief 
review of my course on the whole slavery agitation, and show clearly and 
distinctly the principles by which my action upon the subject has always 
been governed. It is no part of my purpose, on the present occasion, to vin- 
dicate the correctness of my views and principles, but simply to show what 
they are, and what my official acts have been, in order that the public may 
judge for themselves. I have always opposed the introduction of the subject 
of slavery into the halls of Congress for any purpose — either for discussion 
or action — except in the cases specified and enjoined by the Constitution of 
the United States, as in the case of the reclamation of fugitives from labor. 
The first important vote I ever gave in the House of Kepresentatives was in 
favor of the rule excluding abolition petitions, and my vote stands recorded 
against its repeal at the time it was abolished. My action here since I 
have been a member of the Senate has been governed by the same principle. 
Whenever the slavery agitation has been forced upon us, I have always met 
it fairly, directly, and fearlessly, and endeavored to apply the proper remedy. 
Whether the remedy proposed by me has always been the wisest and most 
appropriate is a fair subject of discussion, and will doubtless give rise to a 



164 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

wide diversity of opinion. When the. stormy agitation arose in connection 
with the annexation of Texas, I originated and first brought forward the 
Missouri Compromise as applicable to that Territory, and had the gratifica- 
tion to see it incorporated in the bill which annexed Texas to the United 
States. I did not deem it a matter of much moment as applicable to Texas 
alone, but I did conceive it to be of vast importance in view of the probable 
acquisition of New Mexico and California. My preference for the Missouri 
Compromise was predicated on the assumption that the whole people of the 
United States would be more easily reconciled to that measure than to any 
other mode of adjustment ; and this assumption rested upon the fact that the 
Missouri Compromise had been the means of an amicable settlement of a 
fearful controversy in 1821, which had been acquiesced in cheerfully and 
cordially by the people for more than a quarter of a century, and which all 
parties and sections of the Union professed to respect and cherish as a fair, 
just, and honorable adjustment. I could discover no reason for the applica- 
tion of the Missouri line to all the territory owned by the United States in 
1821 that would not apply with equal force to its extension to the Rio 
Grande and also to the Pacific, so soon as we should acquire the country. 
In accordance with these views, I brought forward the Missouri Compromise 
at the session of 1844-45 as applicable to Texas, and had the satisfaction 
to see it adopted. Subsequently, after the war with Mexico had commenced, 
and when, in August, 1846, Mr. Wilmot first introduced his proviso, I pro- 
posed to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific as a substitute for 
the Wilmot Proviso. When the proviso was voted into the Two Million Bill 
in opposition to my vote, I voted against the bill — which I would otherwise 
have supported — because the proviso was there. Again, in 1847, when the 
proviso was voted into the Three Million Bill, I voted against the bill for the 
same reason. The next time I had the opportunity of voting on the proviso 
was in the spring of 1848, in the Senate, pending the ratification of the treaty 
of peace with Mexico, when it was offered as an amendment to the treaty, I 
believe by a senator from Connecticut, now not a member of this body. The 
record shows that I here again voted against the proviso. This was the last 
vote ever taken on the Wilmot Provis.0 — the last that ever could be taken 
upon it as applicable to the country acquired from Mexico, for the reason 
that by this treaty we acquired the country without any such condition as 
that proposed by Mr. Wilmot. It should be borne in mind that the Wilmot 
Proviso not only proposed to prohibit slavery in the Territories while they re- 
mained Territories, but also went farther, and proposed to insert a stipulation 
in the treaty with a foreign power pledging the faith of the nation that sla- 
very should never exist in the country acquired, either while it remained in 
the condition of Territories, or after it should have been admitted into the 
Union as states on an equal footing with the original states. I denounced 
this proviso as being unwise, improper, and unconstitutional ; I never voted 
for it, and publicly declared that I never would vote for it, even under the 
pressure of instructions. The Wilmot Proviso being thus disposed of forev- 
er, and California and New Mexico having been acquired without any condi- 
tion or stipulation in respect to slavery, the question arose as to what kind of 
territorial governments should be established for those countries. A domes- 
tic affliction suddenly called me from the capital, and detained me several 
weeks. On my return I found pending before the Senate the measure 
known as the Clayton Bill. Its provisions were not such as I would have 
proposed as chairman of the Territorial Committee had I been present, yet 
it had the high merit of having been reported with great unanimity by a 
special committee of the most eminent and distinguished members of the 
Senate, fairly representing all the different sections and interests of the 
Union. This fact afforded reason for the hope that the bill might receive 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 165 

the sanction of both houses of Congress, and thus put an end to the contro- 
versy. Under the influence of these considerations, the bill received my cor- 
dial support, and passed the Senate by an overwhelming majority, but was 
promptly rejected by the House of Representatives. The controversy being 
reopened with increased violence, and my position at the head of the Terri- 
torial Committee requiring me to take the initiative in some plan of fair and 
just settlement, I brought forward my original proposition to extend the Mis- 
souri Compromise to the Pacific in the same sense and with the same under- 
standing with which it was originally adopted. This proposition met the 
approbation of the Senate, and passed this body by a large majority, but was 
instantly rejected in the House of Representatives by a still larger majority. 
The day of adjournment having arrived, no farther efforts were made to ad- 
just the difficulty during that session. At the opening of the next session, 
upon consultation with the friends of the measure, it was generally conceded 
— with, perhaps, here and there an individual exception — that there was no 
hope left for the Missouri Compromise, and consequently some other plan of 
adjustment must be devised. I was reluctant to give up the Missouri Com- 
promise, having been the first to bring it forward, and having struggled for 
it in both houses of Congress for about five years. But public duty demand- 
ed that all considerations of pride of character and of opinion should be made 
subservient to the public peace and tranquillity. I gave it up — reluctantly, 
to be sure — and conceived the idea of a bill to admit California as a state, 
leaving the people to form a constitution and settle the question of slavery 
afterward to suit themselves. I submitted this bill to the then President of 
the United States (Mr. Polk), and have the satisfaction of stating that it re- 
ceived his sanction, and was introduced by me with his approbation. The 
great argument in favor of this bill was that it recognized the right of the 
people to determine all questions relating to their domestic concerns in their 
own way, and authorized them to do so uninfluenced by executive dictation, 
or by the apprehension that, unless they decided the slavery question in a 
particular way, their application for admission would be rejected by Con- 
gress. I do not endorse and never did sanction the charge against the late 
administration of having used improper means, or any means to influence the 
decision of the people of California upon this question; but I do say that, 
had this bill become the law of the land, no such charge would ever have 
been made or suspicion entertained. The great misfortune is, that a large 
portion of the South really believe that improper influences were used to pro- 
duce the result in California. They do not deny the right of the people of 
California to make that decision, but they insist that the right should have 
been exercised freely, and uninfluenced by any act of the agents of the ad- 
ministration, or by the apprehension of an adverse decision by Congress in the 
event that they had decided the Slavery question otherwise. But, Mr. Pres- 
ident, the Judiciary Committee reported against and the Senate refused to 
pass my bill to admit California as a state, leaving the question of slavery 
open to be decided afterward by the people, and thus cut off all hope of ad- 
justment in that mode. According to my recollection, the next important 
measure which promised the slightest hope of giving peace to the country 
w r as the proposition of the senator from Wisconsin, which is usually known as 
the "Walker Amendment." All other plans having failed, as a last hope I 
came warmly into the support of that proposition, and struggled for its adop- 
tion through that terrible night session, as many senators will recollect. 

This brief history brings us down to the commencement of that memorable 
long session when the late compromise measures were adopted. Mr. Pres- 
ident, I may be permitted here to pause and remark that, during the period 
of five years that I was laboring for the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, 
my votes on the Oregon question, and upon all incidental questions touching 



166 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

slavery, were given with reference to a»settlement on that basis, and are con- 
sistent with it. If, therefore, any gentleman has the curiosity or wish to un- 
derstand the meaning of any or all the votes I had occasion to give during 
that period on this question, he has only to bear in mind the Missouri Com- 
promise, and then observe the perfect harmony between each vote and that 
measure. 

Now, sir, I approach the history of the compromise measures. My account 
will be brief and easily understood. Having again been placed by the Sen- 
ate at the head of the Territorial Committee, it became my duty to prepare 
and submit some plan of adjustment. Early in December, within the first two 
or three weeks of the session, I wrote, and laid before my committee for their 
examination and approval, two bills — one for the admission of California into 
the Union, and the other containing three distinct measures : first, for the es- 
tablishment of a Territorial government for Utah ; second, for the establish- 
ment of a Territorial government for New Mexico ; and, third, for the settle- 
ment of the Texas Boundary. These bills remained before the Committee 
on Territories from the month of December until the 25th of March before I 
could obtain the consent of the committee to report them. On that day I 
reported those bills, each member of the committee reserving the right to op- 
pose any portion of them his judgment should disapprove of, and I being the 
only member who was responsible for all the provisions of those two bills. 
Those bills were on my motion ordered to be printed, and laid on the table of 
each member of both houses of Congress. These printed bills having lain on 
your table about four weeks, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Foote, appointed 
a committee of thirteen, with the distinguished senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Clay) at its head. That committee took my two printed bills, joined them 
together with a wafer, and reported them to "the Senate as one bill, which is 
well known to the country as the " Omnibus BUI." If any gentleman has 
the curiosity to investigate this matter, he can walk to the secretary's table 
and inspect the original Omnibus Bill. He will find that it consists of two 
printed bills with a wafer between them, and a black line drawn through the 
words " Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories," and in lieu of 
them are inserted these other words : ' ' Mr. Clay, from the Committee of 
Thirteen," reported the following bill. The committee had also made some 
slight and comparatively unimportant amendments, nearly all of which were 
disagreed to by the Senate. The Committee of Thirteen, therefore, did not 
originate or write any one measure contained in the omnibus. They availed 
themselves of the labors of the Committee on Territories, and their distin- 
guished chairman did us the justice so to state at the time he reported the bill. 
The Committee of Thirteen put a wafer between our bills, and the Senate 
took out the wafer and passed them separately. I supported the omnibus as 
a joint measure. I also supported each measure separately. I had no pride 
of opinion that the bills should be passed in the precise forrn I had reported 
them. I desired to see the controversy terminated, and was willing to take 
the measure jointly or separately, or in any form in which they could pass 
both houses of Congress. I reported them separately because I had ascer- 
tained the fact from actual count that they could pass separately, and could 
never pass jointly. 

Mr. President, I claim no credit for having originated and proposed the 
measures contained in the omnibus. There was no peculiar or remarkable 
feature in them. They were merely ordinary measures of legislation, well 
adapted to the circumstances, and their sole merit consisted in the fact that 
separately they could pass both houses of Congress. Being responsible for 
these bills, as they came from the hands of the Committee on Territories, I 
wish to call the attention of the Senate and of the country to the fact that 
they contained no prohibition of slavery — no provision upon the subject. And 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPKOMISE. 167 

now I come to the main point, which explains the object of the detailed state- 
ment which I have just made. The Legislature of Illinois, by a combination 
of every Whig in each house with a few Free-soil Democrats, had passed a 
resolution instructing me to vote for a bill for the government of the territory 
acquired from Mexico which should contain an express prohibition of slavery 
in said Territory. The instruction did not go to the extent of the Wilmot 
Proviso by attempting to prohibit slavery in the states as well as the Terri- 
tories, but the movers of it contented themselves with the provision that 
slavery should be prohibited in the Territories while they remained such, 
leaving the people to do as they pleased when they became a state. Yet 
the instruction was designed and deemed sufficient to compel me to resign 
my seat and give place to a Free-soiler, for there could have been no expecta- 
tion of their electing a Whig. They knew my inflexible opposition to the 
principle asserted in the instructions, at the same time that they knew that 
the right of instruction was the settled doctrine of both parties in my state, 
which no man could repudiate with safety. Knowing that this combination 
of Whigs and Free-soilers flattered themselves that they had succeeded in a 
party trick which would drive me from the Senate and give place to a Free- 
soiler who would come here and carry out abolition doctrines, I confess that 
they would have succeeded in their plot had I been certain that all the meas- 
ures of the Compromise could have been passed without my vote and in op- 
position to the vote of an abolitionist in my place. Notwithstanding these 
instructions, I wrote the bills and reported them from the Committee on Ter- 
ritories without the prohibitions, in order that the record might show what 
my opinions were ; but, lest the trick might fail, a Free-soil senator offered 
an amendment in the precise language of my instructions. I knew that the 
amendment could not prevail, even if my colleague and myself recorded the 
vote of our state in its favor. 

But if I resigned my place to an abolitionist, it was almost certain that the 
bills would fail on their passage. After consulting with my colleague and 
with many senators friendly to the bills, I came to the conclusion that duty 
required that I should retain my seat. I was prepared to fight and defy ab- 
olitionism in all its forms, but I was not willing to repudiate the settled doc- 
trine of my state in regard to the right of instruction. Before the vote was 
taken, I made a speech reviewing my course on the Slavery question and de- 
fining my position. I denounced the doctrine of the amendment, declared 
my unalterable opposition to it, and gave notice that any vote which might 
be recorded in my name seemingly in its favor would be the vote of those 
who gave the instructions, and not my own. Under this protest, I recorded 
a vote for this and one or two other amendments embracing the same prin- 
ciple, and then renewed my protest against them, and gave notice that I 
should not hold myself responsible for them. Immediately on my return 
home to my constituents, and in that same Chicago speech to which I have 
referred, I renewed my protest against those votes, and repeated the notice 
to that excited and infuriated meeting that they were their votes and not 
mine. I will detain the Senate a moment while I read a passage from that 
speech. Speaking of the Territorial bills, I say — [Mr. Douglas then 
quoted from his Chicago speech those portions referring to the powers of the 
Legislature of the Territories.] 

This speech was immediately printed, and circulated all over the state. I 
at the same time traveled over a good portion of the state, and made many 
speeches of the same tenor, the last of which was made in the capital of our 
state. A few weeks afterward the Legislature assembled, and one of their 
first acts was to repeal the resolutions of instructions to which I have refer- 
red, and to pass resolutions approving of the course of my colleague and my- 
self on the compromise measures by a vote of three or four to one. From 



168 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

that day Illinois has stood firm and unwavering in support of the compromise 
measures and of all the compromises of the Constitution. 

THE CHICAGO SPEECH. 

The following is a copy of the speech made by Judge Doug- 
las to the excited meeting in Chicago on the 23d of October, 
1850. The report was written out next day, and much that 
was said is omitted. The argument, however, is preserved, and, 
as a whole, it will not surprise the reader that it produced a 
powerful effect upon a people who, really and truly loyal to 
the Constitution, had been misled and induced to acts of folly 
by the persevering misrepresentations of the abolitionists. 
Four years later, these fanatics, profiting by their fatal expe- 
rience in allowing Judge Douglas to defend himself before the 
people, took care to prevent another conversion of public sen- 
timent, and refused to let him be heard. The following is the 
speech : 

The agitation on the subject of slavery now raging through the breadth of 
the land presents a most extraordinary spectacle. Congress, after a pro- 
tracted session of nearly ten months, succeeded in passing a system of meas- 
ures, which are believed to be just to all parts of the republic, and ought to 
be satisfactory to the people. The South has not triumphed over the North, 
nor has the North achieved a victory over the South. Neither party has 
made any humiliating concessions to the other. Each has preserved its 
honor, while neither has surrendered an important right, or sacrificed any 
substantial interest. The measures composing the scheme of adjustment are 
believed to be in harmony with the principles of justice and the Constitution. 

And yet we find that the agitation is reopened in the two extremes of the 
Union with renewed vigor and increased violence. In some of the Southern 
States, special sessions of the Legislatures are being called for the purpose 
-of organizing systematic and efficient measures of resistance to the execution 
of the laws of the land, and for the adoption of disunion as the remedy. In 
the Northern States, municipal corporations, and other organized bodies of 
men, are nullifying the acts of Congress, and raising the standard of rebel- 
lion against the authority of the federal government. 

At the South, the measures of adjustment are denounced as a disgraceful 
surrender of Southern rights to Northern abolitionism. 

At the North, the same measures arc denounced with equal violence as a 
total abandonment of the rights of freemen to conciliate the slave power. 

The Southern disunionists repudiate the authority of the highest judicial 
tribunal on earth upon the ground that it is a pliant and corrupt instrument 
in the hands of Northern fanaticism. 

The Northern milliners refuse to submit the points at issue to the same 
exalted tribunal upon the ground that the Supreme Court of the United 
States is a corrupt and supple instrument in the hands of the Southern slave- 
ocracy. 

For these contradictory reasons the people in both sections of the Union 
are called upon to resist the laws of the land and the authority of the federal 
government by violence, even unto death and disunion. 

Strange and contradictory positions ! 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 169 

Both can not be true, and I trust in God neither may prove to be. We 
have fallen on evil times, when passion, and prejudice, and ambition can so 
blind the judgments and deaden the consciences of men that the truth can 
not be seen and felt. The people of the North or the South, or both, are 
acting under a total delusion. Should we not pause and reflect, and con- 
sider whether we, as well as they, have not been egregiously deceived upon 
this subject ? It is my purpose this evening to give a candid and impartial 
exposition of these measures, to the end that the truth may be known. It 
does not become a free people to rush madly and blindly into violence, and 
bloodshed, and death, and disunion, without first satisfying our consciences 
upon whose souls the guilty consequences must rest. 

The measures known as the adjustment or compromise scheme are six in 
number : 

1. The admission of California, with her free Constitution. 

2. The erection of a Territorial government for Utah, leaving the people to 
regulate their own domestic institutions. 

3. The creation of a Territorial government for New Mexico, with like 
provisions. 

4. The adjustment of the disputed boundary with Texas. 

5. The abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. 

6. The Fugitive Slave Bill. 

The first three of these measures — California, Utah, and New Mexico — I 
prepared with my own hands, and reported from the Committee on Territo- 
ries, as its chairman, in the precise shape in which they now stand on the 
statute-book, with one or two unimportant amendments, for which I also 
voted. I therefore hold myself responsible to you, as my constituents, for 
those measures as they passed. If there is any thing wrong in them, hold 
me responsible ; if there is any thing of merit, give the credit to those who 
passed the bills. These measures are predicated on the great fundamental 
principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regula- 
ting their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way. 
It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizens who emigrated to the shores 
of the Pacific and to our other Territories were as capable of self-government 
as their neighbors and kindred whom they left behind them ; and there was no 
reason for believing that they have lost any of their intelligence or patriotism 
by the wayside, while crossing the Isthmus or the Plains. It was also be- 
lieved that, after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar 
with its topography, climate, productions, and resources, and had connected 
their destiny with it, they were fully as competent to judge for themselves 
what kind of laws and institutions were best adapted to their condition and 
interests, as we were, who never saw the country, and knew very little about it. 
To question their competency to do this was to deny their capacity for self- 
government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be in- 
trusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men, I know 
of no reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the 
negro. If they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection 
of life, liberty, and property — of morals and education — to determine the re- 
lation of husband and wife — of parent and child — I am not aware that it re- 
quires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of master and 
servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution to each state to 
decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should not 
be extended to the Territories. My votes and acts have been in accordance 
with these views in all cases, except the instances in which I voted under 
your instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my 
protest against them at the time — before and after they were recorded — and 
shall never hold myself responsible for them. I believed then, and believe 

H 



170 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

now, that it was better for the cause of freedom, of humanity, and of Repub- 
licanism, to leave the people interested to settle all these questions for them- 
selves. They have intellect and consciences as well as we, and have more 
interest in doing that which is best for themselves and their posterity, than 
we have as their self-constituted and officious guardians. I deem it fortunate 
for the peace and harmony of the country that Congress, taking the same 
view of the subject, rejected the proviso, and passed the bills in the shape in 
which I originally reported them. So far as slavery is concerned, I am sure 
that any man who will take the pains to examine the history of this question 
will come to the conclusion that this is the true policy, as well as the sound 
Republican doctrine. Mr. Douglas here went into a historical view of the 
subject, to show that slavery had never been excluded in fact from one inch 
of the American continent by act of Congress, after which he said : 

But let us return to the measures immediately under discussion. It must 
be conceded that the question of the admission of California was not free from 
difficulty, independent of the subject of slavery. There were many irregu- 
larities in the proceedings ; in fact, every step in her application for admission 
was irregular, when viewed with reference to a literal compliance with the 
most approved rules and usages in the admission of new states. On the other 
hand, it should be borne in mind that this resulted from the necessity of the 
case. Congress had failed to perform its duty — had established no Territorial 
government, and made no provision for her admission into the Union. She 
was left without government, and was therefore compelled to provide one for 
herself. She could not conform to rules which had not been established, nor 
comply with laws which Congress had failed to enact. The same irregular- 
ities had occurred, however, and been waived, in the admission of other 
states under peculiar circumstances. True, they had not all occurred in the 
case of any one state ; but some had in one, others in another ; so that, by 
looking into the circumstances attending the admission of each of the new 
states, we find that all of these irregularities, as they are called, had inter- 
vened and been waived in the course of our legislative history. Besides, the 
Territory of California was too extensive for one state (if we are to adopt 
the old states as a guide in carving out new ones), being about three times 
the size of New York ; and her boundaries were unnatural and unreasonable, 
disregarding the topography of the country, and embracing the whole mining 
region and her coast in the limits. Thus it will be seen that the Slavery 
question was not the only real difficulty that the admission of California 
presented to the minds of calm and reflecting men, although it can not be 
denied that it was the exciting cause, which stimulated a large portion of the 
people in one section to demand her instant admission, and in the other to 
insist upon her unconditional rejection. Even in this point of view, I humbly 
conceive that the ultras in each extreme of the republic acted under a mis- 
conception of their true interests and real policy. The whole of California — 
from the very nature of the country, her rocks and sands, elevation above the 
sea, climate, soil, and productions — was bound to be free territory by the de- 
cision of her own people, no matter when admitted or how divided. Hence, 
if considered with reference to the preponderance of political power between 
the free and slaveholding states, it was manifestly the true policy of the South 
to include the whole country in one state, while the same reasons should have 
induced the North to subdivide it into as many states as the extent of the ter- 
ritory would justify. But, in my opinion, it was not proper for Congress to 
act upon any such principle. We should know no North, no South, in our 
legislation, but look to the interests of the whole country. By our action in 
this case, the rights and privileges of California and the Pacific coast were 
principally to be affected. By erecting the country into one state instead of 
three, the people are to be represented in the St*-, in the place of 



"WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 171 

six senators. If their interests suffer in consequence, they can blame no one 
but themselves, for Congress only confirmed what they had previously done. 
The problem in relation to slavery should have been much more easily solved. 
It was a question which concerned the people of California alone. The other 
states of the Union had no interest in it, and no right to interfere with it. 
South Carolina settled that question within her own limits to suit herself; 
Illinois has decided it in a manner satisfactory to her own people ; and upon 
what principle are we to deprive the people of the State of California of a 
right which is common to every state in the Union ? 

The bills establishing Territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico 
are silent upon the subject of slavery, except the provision that, when they 
should be admitted into the Union as states, each should decide the question 
of slavery for itself. This latter provision was not incorporated in my original 
bills, for the reason that I conceived it to involve a principle so clearly de- 
ducible from the Constitution that it was unnecessary to embody it in the 
form of legal enactment. But when it was offered as an amendment to the 
bills, I cheerfully voted for it, lest its rejection should be deemed a denial of 
the principle asserted in it. The abolitionists of the North profess to regard 
these bills as a total abandonment of the principles of freedom, because they 
do not contain an express prohibition of slavery, while the ultras of the South 
denounce the same measures as equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso. 

He then explained and defended the Texas Boundary meas- 
ure, and the Bill for the Suppression of the local Slave-trade in 
the District of Columbia. He then took up the Fugitive Slave 
Act, and said : 

DEFENSE OF THE FUGITTVE SLAVE LAW. 
Before I proceed to the exposition of that bill, I will read the preamble and 
resolutions passed by the Common Council of this city night before last. 

Mr, Douglas then read as follows : 

" Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides that the privi- 
lege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases 
of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it ; and 

" Whereas, The late act of Congress, purporting to be for the recovery of 
fugitive slaves, virtually suspends the habeas corpus and abolishes the right 
of trial by jury, and by its provisions not only fugitive slaves, but white men, 
"owing service" to another in another state, viz., the apprentice, the me- 
chanic, the farmer, the laborer engaged on contract or otherwise, whose terms 
of service are unexpired, may be captured and carried off summarily, and with- 
out legal resource of any kind ; and 

" Whereas, No law can be legally or morally binding on us which violates 
the provisions of the Constitution ; and 

" Whereas, Above all, in the responsibilities of human life, and the prac- 
tice and propagation of Christianity, the laws of God should be held para- 
mount to all .human compacts and statutes ; Therefore, 

" Resolved, That the senators and representatives in Congress from the free 
states, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, and those 
iv ho basely sneaked away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question, rich- 
ly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to be ranked 
with the traitors Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Lord 
and Master for thirty pieces of silver. 

" And Resolved, That the citizens, officers, and police of the city be, and 
they are hereby, requested to abstain from all interference in the capture and 
delivering up of the fugitive from unrighteous oppression, of whatever nation, 
name, or color. 



172 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

"Resolved, That the Fugitive Slave «Law lately passed by Congress is a 
cruel and unjust law, and ought not to be respected by any intelligent com- 
munity, and that this council will not require the city police to render any 
assistance for the arrest of fugitive slaves. 

"Ayes — Aid. Milliken, Loyd, Sherwood, Foss, Throop, Sherman, Rich- 
ards, Brady, and Dodge. 

"Nays — Aid. Page and Williams." 

But for the passage of these resolutions, said Mr. D., I should not have ad- 
dressed you this evening, nor, indeed, at any time before my return to the 
Capitol. I have no desire to conceal or withhold my opinions, no wish to 
avoid the responsibility of a full and frank expression of them, upon this and 
all other subjects which were embraced in the action of the last session of 
Congress. My reasons for wishing to avoid public discussion at this time 
were to be found in the state of my health, and the short time allowed me to 
remain among you. 

Now to the resolutions. I make no criticism upon the language in which 
they are expressed ; that is a matter of taste, and in every thing of that 
kind I defer to the superior refinement of our city fathers. But it can not 
be disguised that the polite epithets of "traitors, Benedict Arnold and Judas 
Iscariot, who betrayed his Lord and Master for thirty pieces of silver," will 
be understood abroad as having direct personal application to my esteemed 
colleague, Gen. Shields, and myself. Whatever may have been the intention 
of those who voted for the resolutions, I will do the members of council the jus- 
tice to say that I do not believe they intended to make any such application. 
But their secret intentions are of little consequence when they give their of- 
ficial sanction to a charge of infamy, clothed in such language that every man 
who reads it must give it a personal application. The whole affair, however, 
looks strange, and even ludicrous, when contrasted with the cordial reception 
and public demonstrations of kindness and confidence, and even gratitude 
for supposed services, extended to my colleague and myself upon our arrival 
in this city one week ago. Then we were welcomed home as public benefac- 
tors, and invited to partake of a public dinner by an invitation numerously 
signed by men of all parties and shades of opinion. The invitation had no 
sooner been declined, for reasons which were supposed to be entirely satisfac- 
tory, and my colleague started for his home, than the Common Council, who 
are presumed to speak officially for the whole population of the city, attempt- 
ed to brand their honored guests with infamy, and denounce them as Bene- 
dict Arnolds and Judas Iscariots ! I have read somewhere that it was a po- 
lite custom, in other countries and a different age, to invite those whom they 
secretly wished to destroy to a feast, in order to secure a more convenient op- 
portunity of administering the hemlock ! I acquit the Common Council of 
any design of introducing that custom into our hospitable city. But I have 
done with this subject, so far as it has a personal bearing. 

It is a far more important and serious matter, when viewed with reference 
to the principles involved, and the consequences which may result. The Com- 
mon Council of the city of Chicago have assumed to themselves the right, and 
actually exercised the power, of determining the validity of an act of Congress, 
and have declared it void upon the ground that it violates the Constitution of 
the United States and the law of God ! They have gone further ; they de- 
clared, by a solemn official act, that a law passed by Congress "ought not to 
be respected by any intelligent community," and have called upon " the cit- 
izens, officers, and police of the city" to abstain from rendering any aid or as- 
sistance in its execution ! What is this but naked, unmitigated nullification ? 
An act of the American Congress nullified by the Common Council of the 
city of Chicago ! Whence did the council derive their authority ? I have 
been able to find no such provision in the city charter, nor am I aware that 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPEOMISE. 173 

the Legislature of Illinois is vested with any rightful power to confer such au- 
thority. I have yet to learn that a subordinate municipal corporation is li- 
censed to raise the standard of rebellion, and throw off the authority of the 
federal government at pleasure ! This is a great improvement upon South 
Carolinian nullification. It dispenses with the trouble, delay, and expense 
of convening Legislatures and assembling conventions of the people, for the 
purpose of resolving themselves back into their original elements, preparatory 
to the contemplated revolution. It has the high merit of marching directly 
to its object, and by a simple resolution, written and adopted on the same 
night, relieving the people from their oaths and allegiance, and of putting the 
nation and its laws at defiance ! It has heretofore been supposed, by men of 
antiquated notions, who have not kept up with the progress of the age, that 
the Supreme Court of the United States was invested with the power of de- 
termining the validity of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the forms 
of the Constitution. This was the doctrine of the entire North, and of the 
nation, when it became necessary to exert the Avhole power of the government 
to put down nullification in another portion of the Union. But the spirit of 
the age is progressive, and is by no means confined to advancement in the arts 
and physical sciences. The science of politics and of government is also rap- 
idly advancing to maturity and perfection. It is not long since that I heard 
an eminent lawyer propose an important reform in the admirable judicial sys- 
tem of our state, which, he thought, would render it perfect. It was so sim- 
ple and eminently practicable that it could not fail to excite the admiration 
of even the casual inquirer. His proposition was, that our judicial system 
should be so improved as to allow an appeal, on all constitutional questions, 
from the Supreme Court of this state to two justices of the peace ! When 
that shall have been effected, but one other reform will be necessary to ren- 
der our national system perfect, and that is, to change the federal Constitu- 
tion, so as to authorize an appeal, upon all questions touching the validity of 
acts of Congress, from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Com- 
mon Council of the city of Chicago ! 

So much for the general principles involved in the acts of the council. I 
will now examine briefly the specific grounds of objection urged by the coun- 
cil against the Fugitive Slave Bill, as reasons why it should not be obeyed. 

The objections are two in number : first, that it suspends the writ of habeas 
corpus in time of peace, in violation of the Constitution ; secondly, that it 
abolishes the right of trial by jury. 

How the council obtained the information that these two odious provisions 
were contained in the law, I am unable to divine. One thing is certain, 
that the members of the council who voted for these resolutions had never 
read the law, or they would have discovered their mistake. There is not 
one word in it in respect to the writ of habeas corpus or the right of trial by 
jury. Neither of these subjects is mentioned or referred to. The law is 
entirely silent on these points. Is it to be said that an act of Congress which 
is silent on the subject ought to be construed to repeal a great constitutional 
right by implication ? Besides, this act is only an amendment — amendatory 
of the old law — the act of 1793 — but does not repeal it. There is no differ- 
ence between the original act and the amendment in this respect. Both are 
silent in regard to the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury. 
If to be silent is to suspend the one and abolish the other, then the mischief 
was done by the old law fifty-seven years ago. If this construction be cor- 
rect, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, and trial by a jury abol- 
ished, more than half a century, without any body ever discovering the fact, 
or, if knowing it, without uttering a murmur of complaint. 

Mr. Douglas then read the whole of the act of 1793, and compared its 
provisions with the amendment of last session, for the purpose of showing 



174 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

that the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury were not alluded 
to or interfered with by either. But I maintain, said Mr. D. , that the writ 
of habeas corpus is applicable to the case of the arrest of a fugitive under this 
law, in the same sense in which the Constitution intended to confer it, and 
to the fullest extent for which that case is ever rightfully issued in any case. 
In this I am fully sustained by the opinion of Mr. Crittenden, the attorney 
general of the United States. As soon as the bill passed the two houses of 
Congress, an abolition paper raised the alarm that the habeas corpus had 
been suspended. The cry was eagerly caught up, and transmitted by light- 
ning upon the wires to every part of the Union by those whose avocation is 
agitation. The President of the United States, previous to signing the bill, 
referred it to the attorney general for his opinion upon the point whether any 
portion of it violated any provision of the Constitution of the United States, 
and especially whether it could possibly be construed to suspend the writ of 
habeas corpus. I have the answer of the attorney general before me, in 
which he gives it as his decided opinion that every part of the law is entire- 
ly consistent with the Constitution, and that it does not suspend the writ of 
habeas corpus. I would commend the argument of the attorney general to 
the careful perusal of those who have doubts upon the subject. Upon the 
presentation of this opinion, and with entire confidence in its correctness, 
President Fillmore signed the bill. 

[Here Mr. Douglas was interrupted by a person present, who called his at- 
tention to the last clause of the 6th section of the bill, which he read, and 
asked him what construction he put upon it, if it did not suspend the writ 
of habeas corpus.] 

Mr. Douglas, in reply, expressed his thanks to the gentleman who pro- 
pounded the inquiry. His object Avas to meet every point, and remove every 
doubt that could be possibly raised ; and he expressed the hope that every 
gentleman present would exercise the privilege of asking him questions upon 
all points upon which he was not fully satisfied. He then proceeded to an- 
swer the question which had been propounded. That section of the bill pro- 
vides for the arrest of the fugitive and the trial before the commissioner ; and 
if the facts of servitude, ownership, and escape be established by competent 
evidence, the commissioner shall grant a certificate to that effect, which cer- 
tificate shall be conclusive of the right of the person in whose favor it is is- 
sued to remove the fugitive to the state from which he fled. Then comes 
the clause which is supposed to suspend the habeas corpus : " And shall pre- 
vent all molestation of said person or persons by any pi-ocess issued by any court, 
judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever." 

The question is asked whether the writ of habeas corpus is not a "proc- 
ess" within the meaning of this act? I.answer that it undoubtedly is such 
a "process," and that it may be issued by any court or judge having compe- 
tent authority — not for the purpose of "molesting" a claimant, having a 
servant in his possession, with such a certificate from the commissioner or 
judge, but for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether he has such cer- 
tificate or not ; and if so, whether it be in due form of law ; and if not, by 
what authority he holds the servant in custody. Upon the return of the 
writ of habeas corpus, the claimant will be required to exhibit to the court 
his authority for conveying that servant back ; and if he produces a ' ' certif- 
icate" from the commissioner or judge in due form of law, the court will de- 
cide that it has no power to "molest the claimant" in the exercise of his 
rights under the law and the Constitution. But if the claimant is not able 
to produce such certificate, or Other lawful authority, or produces one which 
is not in conformity with law, the court will set the alleged servant at liberty, 
for the very reason that the law has not been complied with. The sole ob- 
ject of the writ of habeas corpus is to ascertain by what authority a person 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 175 

is held in custody ; to release him if no such authority be shown ; and to re- 
frain from any molestation of the claimant if legal authority be produced. 
The habeas corpus is necessary, therefore, to carry the Fugitive Slave Law 
into effect, and, at the same time, to prevent a violation of the rights of free- 
men under it. It is essential to the security of the claimant, as well as the 
protection of the rights of those liable to be arrested under it. The reason 
that the writ of habeas corpus was not mentioned in the bill must be obvi- 
ous. The object of the new law seems to have been to amend the old one 
in those particulars wherein experience had proven amendments to be nec- 
essary, and in all other respects to leave it as it had stood from the days of 
Washington. The provisions of the old law have been submitted to the test 
of long experience — to the scrutiny of the bar and the judgment of the 
courts. The writ of habeas corpus had been adjudged to exist in all cases 
under it, and had always been resorted to when a proper case arose. In 
amending the law there was no necessity for any new provision upon this 
subject, because nobody desired to change it in this respect. 

But why this extraordinary effort, on the part of the professed friends of 
the fugitive, to force such a construction upon the law, in the absence of any 
such obnoxious provision, as to deprive him of the benefit of the writ of 
habeas corpus ? The law does not do so in terms ; and if it is ever accomplish- 
ed, it must be done by implication, contrary to the understanding of those 
who enacted, and in opposition to the practice of the courts, acquiesced in 
by the people from the foundation of the government. One would naturally 
suppose that, if there was room for doubt as to what is the true construction, 
those who claim to be the especial and exclusive friends of the negro would 
contend for that construction which is most favorable to liberty, justice, and 
humanity. But not so. Directly the reverse is the fact. They exhaust 
their learning, and exert all their ingenuity and skill, to deprive the negro of 
all rights under the law. What can be the motive ? Certainly not to pro- 
tect the rights of the free, or to extend liberty to the oppressed; for they 
strive to fasten upon the law such a construction as would defeat both of 
these ends. Can it be a political scheme, to render the law odious, or to ex- 
cite prejudice against all who voted for it, or w r ere unavoidably absent when 
it passed? No matter what the motive, the effects would be disastrous to 
those whose rights they profess to cherish, if then* efforts should be successful. 

Now, a word or two in regard to the right of trial by jury. The city coun- 
cil, in their resolutions, say that this law abolishes that right. I have already 
shown you that the council are mistaken — that the law is silent upon the sub- 
ject, and stands now precisely as it has stood for half a century. If the law 
is defective on that point, the error was committed by our fathers in 1793, 
and the people have acquiesced in it ever since, without knowing of its exist- 
ence or caring to remedy it. The new act neither takes away nor confers 
the right of trial by jury. It leaves it just where our fathers and the Consti- 
tution left it under the old law. That the right of trial by jury exists in this 
country for all men, black or wdiite, bond or free, guilty or innocent, no man 
will be disposed to question who understands the subject. The right is of 
universal application, and exists alike in all the states of the Union ; it al- 
ways has existed, and always will exist, so long as the Constitution of the 
United States shall be respected and maintained, in spite of the efforts of the 
abolitionists to take it away by a perversion of the Fugitive Law. The only 
question is, where shall this jury trial take place ? Shall the jury trial be had 
in the state where the arrest is made, or the state from which the fugitive 
escaped ? Upon this point the act of last session says nothing, and, of 
course, leaves the matter as it stood under the law of '93. The old law was 
silent on this point, and therefore left the courts to decide it in accordance 
with the Constitution. The highest judicial tribunals in the land have al- 



176 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOTJGLAS. 

ways held that the jury trial must take jilace in the state under whose juris- 
diction the question arose, and whose laws were alleged to have been vio- 
lated. The same construction has always been given to the law for surren- 
dering fugitives from justice. It provides also for sending back the fugitive, 
but says nothing about the jury trial, or where it shall take place. Who 
ever supposed that that act abolished the right of trial by jury ? Every day's 
practice and observation teach us otherwise. The jury trial is always had in 
the state from which the fugitive fled. So it is with a fugitive from labor. 
When he returns, or is surrendered under the law, he is entitled to a trial by 
jury of his right of freedom, and always has it when he demands it. There 
is great uniformity in the mode of proceeding in the courts of the Southern 
States in this respect. When the supposed slave sets up his claim, to the 
judge or other officer, that he is free, and claims his freedom, it becomes the 
duty of the court to issue its summons to the master to appear in court with 
the alleged slave, and there to direct an issue of freedom or servitude to be 
made and tried by a jury. The master is also required to enter into bonds 
for his own appearance and that of the alleged slave at the trial of the cause, 
and that he will not remove the slave from the county or jurisdiction of the 
court in the mean time. The court is also required to appoint counsel to 
conduct the cause for the slave, while the master employs his own counsel. 
All the officers of the court are required by law to render all facilities to the 
slave for the prosecution of his suit free of charge, such as issuing and serv- 
ing subpoenas for witnesses, etc. If upon the trial the alleged slave is held 
to be a free man, the master is required to pay the costs on both sides. If, 
on the other hand, he is held to be a slave, the state pays the costs. This is 
the way in which the trial by jury stood under the old law ; and the new one 
makes no change in this respect. If the act of last session be repealed, that 
will neither benefit nor injure the fugitive, so far as the right of trial by jury 
is concerned. 

For these two reasons — the habeas corpus and the trial by jury — the Com- 
mon Council have pronounced the law unconstitutional, and declared that it 
ought not to be respected by an enlightened community. I have shown that 
neither of the objections are well founded, and that, if they had taken the 
trouble to read the law before they nullified it, they would have avoided the 
mistake into which they have fallen. I have spoken of the acts of the city 
council in general terms, and it may be inferred that the vote was unani- 
mous. I take pleasure in stating that I learn from the published proceed- 
ings that there was barely a quorum present, and that Aldermen Page and 
Williams voted in the negative. 

Having disposed of the two reasons assigned by the Common Council for 
the nullification of the law, I shall be greatly indebted to any gentleman who 
will point out any other objection to the new law which does not apply with 
equal force to the old one. My object in drawing the parallel between the 
new and old law is this : The law of '93 was passed by the patriots and sages 
who framed our glorious Constitution, and approved by the Father of his 
Country. I have always been taught to believe that they were men well 
versed in the science of government, devotedly attached to the cause of free- 
dom, and capable of construing the Constitution in the spirit in which they 
made it. That act has been enforced and acquiesced in for more than half a 
centuiy, without a murmur or word of complaint from any quarter. 

I repeat — will any gentleman be kind enough to point out a single objec- 
tion to the new law which might not be urged with equal propriety to the act 
of '93? 

[Here a gentleman present rose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas 
to the penalties in the seventh section of the new law, and desired to know if 
there were any such obnoxious provisions in the old one.] 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPKOMISE. 177 

Mr. Douglas then read the section referred to, and also the fourth section 
of the act of '93, and proceeded to draw the parallel between them. Each 
makes it a criminal offense to resist the due execution of the law; to know- 
ingly and willfully obstruct or hinder the claimant in the arrest of the fugi- 
tive ; to rescue such fugitive from the claimant when arrested ; to harbor or 
conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor. In 
this respect the two laws were substantially the same in every important par- 
ticular. Indeed the one was almost a literal copy of the other. I can con- 
ceive of no act which would be an offense under the one that would not be 
punishable under the other. In the speeches last night, great importance 
was given to the clause which makes it an offense to harbor or conceal a fu- 
gitive. You were told that you could not clothe the naked, nor feed the 
hungry, nor exercise the ordinary charity toward suffering humanity, with- 
out incurring the penalty of the law. Is this a true construction of that pro- 
vision? The act does not so read. The law says that you shall not "har- 
bor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such 
person after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive 
from service or labor as aforesaid." This does not deprive you of the privi- 
lege of extending charities to the fugitive. You may feed him, clothe him, 
may lodge him, provided you do not harbor or conceal him, so as to prevent 
discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge that he is a fugitive. The 
offense consists in preventing the discovery and arrest of the fugitive after 
knowledge of the fact, and not in extending kindness and charities to him. 
This is the construction put upon a similar provision in the old law by the 
highest judicial tribunals in the land. The only difference between the old 
law and the new one, in respect to obstructing its execution, is to be found in 
the amount of the penalty, and not in the principle involved. 

But it is further objected that the new law provides, in addition to the pen- 
alty, for a civil suit for damages, to be recovered by an action of debt by any 
court having jurisdiction of the cause. This is true ; but it is also true that 
a similar provision is to be found in the old law. The concluding clause in 
the last section of the act of '93 is as follows : 

" Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, 
by action of debt, in any proper court to try the same ; saving, moreover, to 
the person claiming such labor or service, his right of action for or on account of 
the said injuries, or either of them.'''' 

Thus it will be seen that upon this point there is no difference between the 
new and the old law. 

Is there any other provision of this law upon which explanation is desired ? 

[A gentleman present referred to the 10th section, and desired an expla- 
nation of the object and effect of the record from another state therein pro- 
vided for.] 

I am glad, said Mr.D., that my attention has been called to that provi- 
sion ; for I heard a construction given %o it in the speeches last night entirely 
different to the plain reading and object of that section. It is said that this 
provision authorizes the claimant to go before a court of record of the county 
and state where he lives, and there establish by ex-parte testimony, in the ab- 
sence of the fugitive, the facts of servitude, of ownership, and escape ; and 
when a record of these facts shall have been made, containing a minute de- 
scription of the slave, it shall be conclusive evidence against a person corre- 
sponding to that description, arrested in another state, and shall consign the 
person so arrested to perpetual servitude. The law contemplates no such 
thing, and authorizes no such result. I have the charity to believe that those 
who have put this construction upon it have not carefully examined it. The 
record from another state predicated upon "satisfactory proof to such court 

H2 



178 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

or judge" before whom the testimony nfay be adduced, and the record made, 
is to be conclusive of two facts only : 

1st. That the person named in the record does owe service to the person 
in whose behalf the record is made. 

2d. That such person has escaped from service. 

The language of the law is, that "the transcript of the record authenti- 
cated," etc., "shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of 
the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of such person escaping is due 
to the party in such record mentioned." The record is conclusive of these 
two facts so far as to authorize the fugitive to be sent back for trial under 
the laws of the state whence he fled, but it is no evidence that the person ar- 
rested here is the fugitive named in the record. The question of identity is to 
be proven here to the satisfaction of the commissioner or judge, before whom 
the trial is had, by ' ' by other and farther evidence.'" This is the great point in 
the case. The whole cpxestion turns upon it. The man arrested may corre- 
spond to the description set forth in the record, and yet not be the same indi- 
vidual. We often meet persons resembling each other to such an extent 
that the one is frequently mistaken for the other. The identity of the person 
becomes a matter of proof — a fact to be established by the testimony of com- 
petent and disinterested witnesses, and to be decided by the tribunal before 
whom the trial is had, conscientiously and impartially, according to the evi- 
dence in the case. The description in the record, unsupported by other tes- 
timony, is not evidence of the identity. It is not inserted for the especial 
benefit of the -claimant, much less to the prejudice of the alleged slave. It 
is required as a test of truth, a safeguard against fraud, which will often op- 
erate favorably to the fugitive, but never to his injury. If the description be 
accurate and true, no injustice can possibly result from it ; but if it be erro- 
neous or false, the claimant is concluded by it; and the fugitive, availing 
himself of the error, defeats the claim, in the same manner as a discrepancy 
between the allegations and the proof, in any other case, results to the ad- 
vantage of the defendant. I repeat that, when an arrest is made under a 
record from another state, the identity of the person must be established by 
competent testimony. The trial, in this instance, would be precisely the same 
as in the case of a white man arrested on the charge of being a fugitive from 
justice. The writ of the governor, predicated upon an indictment, or even 
an affidavit from another state, containing the charge of crime, would be con- 
clusive evidence of the right to take the fugitive back ; but the identity of 
the person in that case, as well as a fugitive from labor, must be proven in 
the state where the arrest is made by competent witnesses before the tribunal 
provided by law for that purpose. In this respect, therefore, the negro is 
placed upon a perfect equality with the white man Avho is so unfortunate as 
to be charged with an offense in another state, whether the charge be true 
or false. In some respects, the law guards the rights of the ntgro charged 
with being a fugitive from labor more rigidly than it docs those of a white 
man who is alleged to be a fugitive from justice. The record from another 
state must be predicated upon "proof satisfactory to the court or judge" before 
whom it is made, and must set forth the "matter proved," before it can be 
evidence against a fugitive from labor, or for any purpose ; whereas an inno- 
cent white man who is so unfortunate as to be falsely charged with a crime 
in another state by the simple affidavit of an unknown person, without indict- 
ment or proof to the satisfaction of any court, is liable to be transported to 
the most distant portions of this Union for trial. 

Here we find the act of last session is a great improvement upon the law 
of '93 in reference to fugitives, white or black, whether they fled from justice 
or labor. But it is objected that the testimony before the court making the 
record is ex parte, and therefore in violation of the principles of justice and 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPEOMISE. 179 

the Constitution, because it deprives the accused of the privilege of meeting 
the witnesses face to face, and of cross-examination. Gentlemen forget that 
all proceedings for the arrest of fugitives are necessarily ex parte, from the 
nature of the case. They have fled beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and 
the object of the proceeding is that they may be brought back, confront the 
witnesses, and receive a fair trial according to the Constitution and laws. If 
they would stay at home in order to attend the trial and cross-examine the 
witnesses, the record would be unnecessary, and the Fugitive Law inopera- 
tive. It is no answer to this proposition to say that slavery is no crime, and 
therefore the parallel does not hold good. I am not speaking of the guilt 
or innocence of slavery ; I am discussing our obligations under the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. That sacred instrument says that a fugitive from 
labor " shall be delivered vp on the claim of the owner." The same clause of 
the same instrument provides that fugitives from justice shall be delivered 
up. We are bound by our oaths to our God to see that claim, as well as 
every other provision of the Constitution, carried into effect. The moral, 
religious, and constitutional obligations resting upon us, here and hereafter, 
are the same in the one case as in the other. As citizens, owing allegiance 
to the government and duties to society, we have no right to interpose our 
individual opinions and scruples as excuses for violating the supreme law of 
the land as our fathers made it, and as we are sworn to support it. The ob- 
ligation is just as sacred, under the Constitution, to surrender fugitives from 
labor j^s fugitives from justice ; and the Congress of the United States, ac- 
cording to the decision of the Supreme Court, are as imperatively commanded 
to provide the necessary legislation for the one as for the other. The act of 
1793, to which I have had occasion to refer so frequently, and which has been 
read to you, provided for these two cases in the same bill. The first half of 
that act, relating to fugitives from justice, applies, from the nature and ne- 
cessity of the case, principally to white men ; and the other half, for the same 
reasons, applies exclusively to the negro race. I have shown you, by reading 
and comparing the two laws in your presence, that there is no constitutional 
guaranty, or common-law right, or legal or judicial privilege, for the protec- 
tion of the white man against oppression and injustice, under the law framed 
in 1793, and now in force, for the surrender of fugitives from justice, that 
does not apply in all its force in behalf of the negro, when arrested as a fugi- 
tive from labor, under the act of the last session. What more can the friends 
of the negro ask than, in all his civil and legal rights under the Constitution, 
he shall be placed on an equal footing with the white man ? But it is said 
that the law is susceptible of being abused by perjury and false testimony. 
To what human enactment does not the same objection lie ? You, or I, or 
any other man, who was never in California in his life, are liable, under the 
Constitution, to be sent there in chains for trial as a fugitive from justice by 
means of perjury and fraud. But does this fact prove that the Constitution, 
and the laws for carrying it into effect, are wrong, and should be resisted, as 
we were told last night, even unto the dungeon, the gibbet, and the grave ? 
It only demonstrates to us the necessity of providing all the safeguards that 
the wit of man can devise for the protection of the innocent and the free, at the 
same time that we religiously enforce, according to its letter and spirit, every 
provision of the Constitution. I will not say that the act recently passed for 
the surrender of fugitives from labor accomplishes all this, but I will thank 
any gentleman to point out any one barrier against abuse in the old law, or in 
the law for the surrender of white men, as fugitives from justice, that is not 
secured to the negro under the new law. I pause in order to give any gen- 
tleman an opportunity to point out the provision. I invite inquiry and ex- 
amination. My object is to arrive at the truth — to repel error and dissipate 
prejudice — and to avoid violence and bloodshed. Will any gentleman point 



180 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

out the provision in the old law for securing and vindicating the rights of the 
free man that is not secured to him in the act of last session ? 

[A gentleman present rose and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the 
provision for paying out of the Treasury of the United States the expenses 
of carrying the fugitive back in case of anticipated resistance.] 

Ah ! said Mr. Douglas, that is a question of dollars and cents, involving 
no other principle than the costs of the proceeding. I was discussing the 
question of human rights — the mode of protecting the rights of freemen from 
invasion, and the obligation to surrender fugitives under the Constitution. 
Is it possible that this momentous question, which, only forty-eight hours ago, 
was deemed of sufficient importance to authorize the city council to nullify 
an act of Congress, and raise the standard of rebellion against the federal 
government, has dwindled down into a mere petty dispute who shall pay the 
costs of suit ? This is too grave a question for me to discuss on this occasion. 
I confess my utter inability to do it justice. Yesterday the Constitution of the 
ocean-bound republic had been overthrown ; the privileges of the writ of 
habeas corpus had been suspended ; the right of trial by jury had been abol- 
ished ; pains and penalties had been imposed upon every humane citizen who 
should feed the hungry and cover the naked ; the law of God had been out- 
raged by an infamous act of a traitorous Congress ; and the standard of re- 
bellion, raised by our city fathers, was floating in the breeze, calling on all 
good citizens to rally under its sacred folds, and resist with fire and sword — 
the payment of the costs of suit upon the arrest of a fugitive from labor ! 

I will pass over this point, and inquire whether there is any other provision 
of this law upon which an explanation is desired ? I hope no one will be 
backward in propounding inquiries, for I lia ,7 e but a few days to remain with 
you, and desire to make a clean business of this matter on the present occa- 
sion. Is there any other objection ? 

[A gentleman rose, and desired to know why the bill provides for paying 
ten dollars to the commissioner for his fee in case he decided in favor of the 
claimant, and only five dollars if he decided against him.] 

I presume, said Mr. Douglas, that the reason was that he would have 
more labor to perform. If, after hearing the testimony, the commissioner 
decided in favor of the claimant, the law made it his duty to prepare and 
authenticate the necessary papers to authorize him to carry the fugitive 
home ; but if he decided against him, he had no such labor to perform. The 
law seems to be based upon the principle that the commissioner should be 
paid according to the service he should render — five dollars for presiding at 
the trial, and five dollars for making out the papers in case the testimony 
should require him to return the fugitive. This provision appears to be ex- 
citing considerable attention in the country, and I have been exceedingly 
gratified at the proceedings of a mass meeting held in a county not far dis- 
tant, in which it was resolved unanimously that they could not be bribed for 
the sum of five dollars to consign a freeman to perpetual bondage ! This 
shows an exalted state of moral feeling highly creditable to those who par- 
ticipated in the meeting. I doubt not they will make their influence felt 
throughout the state, and will instruct their members of the Legislature to 
reform our criminal code in this respect. Under our laws, as they have 
stood for many years, and probably from the organization of our state gov- 
ernment, in all criminal cases, on the preliminary examination before the 
magistrates, and in all the higher courts, if the prisoner be convicted, the 
witnesses, jurors, and officers are entitled to their fees and bills of costs ; but 
if he be acquitted, none of them receive a cent. In order to diffuse the same 
high moral sense throughout the whole community, would it not be well, at 
their next meeting, to pass another resolution, that they would not be bribed 
by the fees and costs of suit in any case, either as witnesses, jurors, magis- 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPKOMISE. 181 

trates, or in any other capacity, to consign an innocent man to a dismal cell 
in the penitentiary, or expose him to an ignominious death upon the gallows? 
Such a resolution might do a great deal of good in elevating the character 
of our people abroad, at the same time that it might inspire increased con- 
fidence in the liberality and conscientiousness of those who adopted it ! 

Is there any other objection to this law ? 

[A gentleman rose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the provi- 
sion vesting the appointment of the commissioners under it in the courts of 
law, instead of the President and Senate, and asked if that was not a viola- 
tion of that provision of the Constitution which says that judges of the Su- 
preme Court, and of the inferior courts, should be appointed by the Presi- 
dent and Senate.] 

I thank the gentleman, said Mr. D., for calling my attention to this point. 
It was made in the speech of a distinguished lawyer last night, and evidently 
produced great effect upon the minds of the audience. The gentleman's 
high professional standing, taken in connection with his laborious prepara- 
tion for the occasion, as was apparent to all, from his lengthy written brief 
before him while speaking, inspired implicit confidence in the correctness of 
his position. My answer to the objection will be found in the Constitution 
itself, which I will read, so far as it bears upon this question : 

" The President shall nominate, and by and with the consent of the Senate 
shall appoint embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the 
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appoint- 
ments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established 
bylaw." 

Now it will be seen that the words " inferior courts" are not mentioned in 
the Constitution. The gentleman, in his zeal against the law, and his phrensy 
to resist it, interpolated these words, and then made a plausible ai-gument 
upon them. I trust this was all unintentional, or was done with the view 
of fulfilling the "higher law." But there is another sentence in this same 
clause of the Constitution which I have not yet read. It is as follows : 

"But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior offi- 
cers as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in 
the heads of departments." 

The practice under this clause has usually been to confer the power of ap- 
pointing those inferior officers, whose duties were executive or ministerial, 
upon the President alone, or upon the head of the appropriate department ; 
and in like manner to give to the courts of law the privilege of appointing 
their subordinates, whose duties were in their nature judicial. What is 
meant by "inferior courts," whose appointment may be vested in the "courts 
of law," will be seen by reference to the 8th section of the Constitution, where 
the powers of Congress are enumerated, and among them is the following : 

"To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." 

Is the tribunal which is to cany the Fugitive Law into effect inferior to 
the Supreme Court of the United States ? If it is, the Constitution expi-essly 
provides for vesting the appointment in the courts of law. I will remark, 
however, that these commissioners are not appointed under the new law, but 
in obedience to an act of Congress which has stood on the statute-books for 
many years. If those who denounce and misrepresent the act of last session 
had condescended to read it before they undertook to enlighten the people 
upon it, they would have saved themselves the mortification of exposure, as 
I will show by reading the first section. 

Here Mr. Douglas read the law, and proceeded to remark : Thus it will be 
seen that these commissioners have been in office for years, with their duties 
prescribed by law, nearly all of which were of a judicial character, and that 
the new law only imposes additional duties, and authorizes the increase of 



182 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the number. Why has not this grave censtitutional objection been discovered 
before, and the people informed how their rights have been outraged in vio- 
lation of the supreme law of the land ? Truly, the passage of the Fugitive 
Bill has thrown a flood of light upon constitutional principles ! 

Is there any other objection to the new law which does not apply to the 
act of '93 ? 

[A gentleman rose, and said that he would like to ask another question, 
which was this : if the new law was so similar to the old one, what was the 
necessity of passing any at all, since the old one was still in force ?] 

Mr. Douglas, in reply, said, that is the very question I was anxious some 
one should propound, because I was desirous of an opportunity of answering 
it. The old law answered all the purposes for which it was enacted tolera- 
bly well until the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the 
case of Priggs v. the State of Pennsylvania, eight or nine years ago. That 
decision rendered the law comparatively inoperative, for the reason that 
there were scarcely any officers left to execute it. It will be recollected that 
the act of '93 imposed the duty of carrying it into effect upon the magistrates 
and other officers under the state governments. These officers performed 
their duties under that law with fidelity for about fifty years, until the Su- 
preme Court, in the case alluded to, decided that they were under no legal 
obligation to do so, and that Congress had no constitutional power to impose 
the duty upon them. From that time many of the officers refused to act, 
and soon afterward the Legislature of Massachusetts, and many other states, 
passed laws making it criminal for their officers to perform these duties. 
Hence the old law, although efficient in its provisions, and similar in most 
respects, and especially in those objected to almost identical with the new 
law, became comparatively a dead letter for want of officers to carry it into 
effect. The judges of the United States courts were the only officers left who 
were authorized to execute it. In this state, for instance, Judge Drummond, 
whose residence was in the extreme northwest corner of the state, within six 
miles of Wisconsin and three of Iowa, and in the direction where fugitives 
were least likely to go, was the only person authorized to try the case. 

If a fugitive was arrested at Shawneetown or Alton, three or four hundred 
miles from the residence of the judge, the master would attempt to take him 
across the river to his home in Kentucky or Missouri, without first establish- 
ing his right to do so. This was calculated to excite uneasiness and doubts 
in the minds of our citizens as to the propriety of permitting the negro to be 
carried out of the state, without the fact of his owing service, and having es- 
caped, being first proved, lest it might turn out that the negro was a free man 
and the claimant a kidnapper. And yet, according to the express terms of the 
old law, the master was authorized to seize his slave wherever he found him, 
and to cany him back without process, or trial, or proof of any kind whatso- 
ever. Hence it was necessary to pass the act of last session, in order to cany 
into effect, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the provisions of the law and 
the Constitution on the one hand, and to protect the free colored man from 
being kidnapped and sold into slavery by unprincipled men on the other 
hand. The purpose of the new law is to accomplish these two objects — to 
appoint officers to cany the law into effect, in the place of the magistrates 
relieved from that duty by the decision of the Supreme Court, and to guard 
against harassing and kidnapping the free blacks, by preventing the claimant 
from carrying the negro out of the state until he establishes his legal right to 
do so. The new law, therefore, is a great improvement in this respect upon 
the old one, and is more favorable to justice and freedom, and better guarded 
against abuse. 

[A person present asked leave to propound another question to Mr. Doug- 
las, which was this : "If the new law is more favorable to freedom than tho 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPKOMISE. 183 

old one, why did the Southern slaveholders vote for it, and desire its pas- 
sage?"] 

Mr. Douglas said he would answer that question with a great deal of pleas- 
ure. The Southern members voted for it for the reason that it was a better law 
than the old one — better for them, better for us, and better for the free blacks. 
It places the execution of the law in the hands of responsible officers of the 
government, instead of leaving every man to take the law into his own hands 
and to execute it for himself. It affords personal security to the claimant 
while arresting his servant and taking him back, by providing him with the 
opportunity of establishing his legal rights, by competent testimony before a 
tribunal duly authorized to try the case, and thus allay all apprehensions and 
suspicions, on the part of our citizens, that he is a villain, attempting to steal 
a free man for the purpose of selling him into slavery. The slaveholder has 
as strong a desire to protect the rights of the free black man as we have, and 
much more interest to do so ; for he well knows that if outrages should be 
tolerated under the law, and free men are seized and carried into slavery, 
from that moment the indignant outcry against it would be so strong here 
and every where, that even a fugitive from labor could not be returned, lest 
he also might happen to be free. The interest of the slaveholder, therefore, 
requires a law which shall protect the rights of all free men, black or white, 
from any invasion or violation whatever. I ask the question, therefore, 
whether this law is not better than the old. one — better for the North and the 
South— better for the peace and quiet of the whole country ? Let it be re- 
membered that this law is but an amendment to the act of '93, and that the 
old law still remains in force, except so far as it is modified by this. Every 
man who voted against this modification thereby voted to leave the old law 
in force ; for I am not aware that any member of either house of Congress 
ever had the hardihood to propose to repeal the law, and make no provisions 
to carry the Constitution into effect. But the cry of repeal, as to the new 
law, has already gone forth. Well, suppose it succeeds ; what will those have 
gained who joined in the shout ? Have I not shown that all the material ob- 
jections they urge against the new law apply with equal force to the old one ? 
What do they gain, therefore, unless they propose to repeal the old law also, 
and make no provisions for performing our obligations, under the Constitu- 
tion? This must be the object of all men who take that position. To this 
it must come in the end. The real objection is not to the new law, nor to 
the old one, but to the Constitution itself. Those of you who hold these 
opinions do not mean that the fugitive from labor shall be taken back. That 
is the real point of your objection. You would not care a farthing about the 
new law or the old law, or any other law, or what provisions it contained, if 
there was a hole in it big enough for the fugitive to slip throughand escape. 
Habeas corpuses — trials by jury — records from other states — pains and pen- 
alties — the Avhole catalogue of objections, would be all moonshine, if the negro 
was not required to go back to his master. Tell me frankly, is not this the 
true character of your objection ? 

[Here several gentlemen gave an affirmative answer.] 

Mr. Douglas said he would answer that objection by reading a portion of 
the Constitution of the United States. He then read as follows : 

( ' No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, 
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, 
be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on 
the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

This, said Mr. D., is the supreme law of the land, speaking to every citizen 
of the republic. The command is imperative. There is no avoiding — no 
escaping the obligation, so long as we live under, and claim the protection 
of, the Constitution. We must yield implicit obedience, or we must take the 



184 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

necessary steps to release ourselves fron* the obligation to obey. There is no 
other alternative. We must stand by the Constitution of the Union, with all 
its compromises, or we must abolish it, and resolve each state back into its 
original elements. It is, therefore, a question of union or disunion. We can 
not expect our brethren of other states to remain faithful to the compact, and 
permit us to be faithless. Are we prepared, therefore, to execute faithfully 
and honestly the compact our fathers have made for us ? 

[Here a gentleman rose, and inquired of Mr. Douglas whether the clause in 
the Constitution providing for the surrender of fugitive slaves was not in vi- 
olation of the law of God ?] 

Mr. Douglas in reply — The divine law is appealed to as authority for dis- 
regarding our most sacred duties to society. The city council have appealed 
to it as their excuse for nullifying an act of Congress ; and a committee em- 
bodied the same principle in their resolutions to the meeting in this hall last 
night, as applicable both to the Constitution and laws. The general proposi- 
tion that there is a law paramount to all human enactments — the law of the 
Supreme Ruler of the Universe — I trust that no civilized and Christian people 
is prepared to question, much less deny. We should all recognize, respect, 
and revere the divine law. But we should bear in mind that the law of God, 
as revealed to us, is intended to operate on our consciences, and insure the 
performance of our duties as individuals and Christians. The divine law 
does not prescribe the form of government under which we shall live, and the 
character of our political and civil institutions. Revelation has not furnished 
us with a Constitution — a code of international law — and a system of civil and 
municipal jurisprudence. It has not determined the right of persons and 
property, much less the peculiar privileges which shall be awarded to each 
class of persons under any particular form of government. God has created 
man in his own image, and endowed him with the right of self-government, 
so soon as he shall evince the requisite intelligence, virtue, and capacity to 
assert and enjoy the privilege. The histoiy of the world furnishes few ex- 
amples where any considerable portion of the human race have shown them- 
selves sufficiently enlightened and civilized to exercise the rights and enjoy 
the blessings of freedom. In Asia and Africa we find nothing but ignorance, 
superstition, and despotism. Large portions of Europe and America can 
scarcely lay claim to civilization and Christianity ; and a still smaller portion 
have demonstrated their capacity for self-government. Is all this contrary to 
the laws of God ? And if so, who is responsible ? The civilized world have 
always held that when any race of men have shown themselves so degraded, 
by ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and barbarism, as to be utterly incapable 
of governing themselves, they must, in the nature of things, be governed by 
others, by such laws as are deemed applicable to their condition. It is upon 
this principle alone that England justifies the form of government she has es- 
tablished in the Indies, and for some of her other colonies — that Russia justi- 
fies herself in holding her serfs as slaves, and selling them as a part of the 
land on which they live — that our Pilgrim Fathers justified themselves in re- 
ducing the negro and Indian to servitude, and selling them as property — that 
we, in Illinois and most of the free states, justify ourselves in denying the 
negro and the Indian the privilege of voting, and all other political rights — 
and that many of the states of the Union justify themselves in depriving the 
white man of the right of the elective franchise, unless he is fortunate enough 
to own a certain amount of property. 

These things certainly violate the principle of absolute equality among 
men, when considered as component parts of a political society or govern- 
ment, and so do many provisions of the Constitution of the United States, as 
well as the several states of the Union. In fact, no government ever existed 
on earth in which there was a perfect equality in all things among those 



WHAT BECAME OF THE COMPROMISE. 185 

composing it and governed by it. Neither sacred nor profane history fur- 
nishes an example. If inequality in the form and principles of government 
is therefore to be deemed a violation of the laws of God, and punishable as 
such, who is to escape? Under this principle all Christendom is doomed, 
and no pagan can hope for mercy ! Many of these things are, in my opinion, 
unwise and unjust, and, of course, subversive of Eepublican principles ; but I 
am not prepared to say that they are either sanctioned or condemned by the 
divine law. Who can assei-t that God has prescribed the form and principles 
of government, and tbe character of the political, municipal, and domestic 
institutions of men on earth? This doctrine would annihilate the funda- 
mental principle upon which our political system rests. Our forefathers held 
that the people had an inherent right to establish such Constitution and laws 
for the government of themselves and their posterity as they should deem best 
calculated to insure the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness, and that the same might be altered and changed as experience should 
satisfy them to be necessary and proper. Upon this principle the Constitu- 
tion of the United States was formed, and our glorious Union established. 
All acts of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution are declared to 
be the supreme laws of the land, and the Supreme Court of the United States 
is charged with expounding the same. All officers and magistrates under 
the federal and state governments — executive, legislative, judicial, and min- 
isterial — are required to take an oath to support the Constitution before they 
can enter upon the performance of their respective duties. Any citizen, 
therefore, who in his conscience believes that the Constitution of the United 
States is in violation of a "higher law," has no right, as an honest man, to 
take office under it, or exercise any other function of citizenship conferred 
by it. Every person born under the Constitution owes allegiance to it, and. 
every naturalized citizen takes an oath to support it. Fidelity to the Con- 
stitution is the only passport to the enjoyment of rights under it. When a 
senator elect presents his credentials, he is not allowed to take his seat until 
he places his hand upon the Holy Evangelist, and appeals to his God for the 
sincerity of his vow to support the Constitution. He who does this, with a 
mental reservation or secret intention to disregard any provision of the Con- 
stitution, commits a double crime — is morally guilty of perfidy to his God and 
treason to his country ! 

If the Constitution of the United States is to be repudiated upon the ground 
that it is repugnant to the divine law, where are the friends of freedom and 
Christianity to look for another and a better? Who is to be the prophet to 
reveal the will of God, and establish a theocracy for us? 

Is he to be found in the ranks of Northern abolitionism or of Southern 
disunion ; or is the Common Council of the city of Chicago to have the dis- 
tinguished honor of furnishing the chosen one ? I will not venture to inquire 
what are to be the form and principles of the new government, or to whom 
is to be intrusted the execution of its sacred functions ; for when we decide 
that the wisdom of our Eevolutionary fathers was foolishness, and their piety 
wickedness, and destroy the only system of self-government that has ever 
realized the hopes of the friends of freedom, and commanded the respect of 
mankind, it becomes us to wait patiently until the purposes of the Latter-Day 
Saints shall be revealed unto us. 

For my part, I am prepared to maintain and preserve inviolate the Consti- 
tution as' it is, with all its compromises ; to stand or fall by the American 
Union, clinging with the tenacity of life to all its glorious memories of the 
past and precious hopes for the future. 

Mr. Douglas then explained the circumstances which rendered his absence 
unavoidable when the vote was taken on the Fugitive Bill in the Senate. 
He wished to avoid no responsibility on account of that absence, and there- 



186 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

fore desired it to be distinctly understood that he should have voted for the 
bill if he could have been present. He'referred to several of our most prom- 
inent and respected citizens by name as personally cognizant of the fact that 
he was anxious at that time to give that vote. He believed the passage of 
that or some other efficient law a solemn duty, imperatively demanded by the 
Constitution. In conclusion, Mr. D. made an earnest appeal to our citizens 
to rally as one man to the defense of the Constitution and laws, and, above 
all things, and under all circumstances, to put down violence and disorder by 
maintaining the supremacy of the laws. He referred to our high character 
for law and order heretofore, and also to the favorable position of our city for 
commanding the trade between the North and South, through our canals 
and railroads, to show that our views and principles of action should be broad, 
liberal, and national, calculated to encourage union and harmony instead of 
disunion and sectional bitterness. He concluded by remarking that he con- 
sidered this question of fidelity to the Constitution and supremacy of the laws 
as so far paramount to all other considerations, that he had prepared some 
resolutions to cover these points only, which he would submit to the meeting, 
and take their judgment upon them. If he had consulted his own feelings 
and views only, he should have embraced in the resolutions a specific ap- 
proval of all the measures of the compromise ; but as the question of rebellion 
and resistance to the federal government has been distinctly presented, it has 
been thought advisable to meet that issue on this occasion, distinct and sep- 
arate from all others. 

Mr. Douglas then offered the following resolutions, which were adopted 
without a dissenting voice : 

Resolved, That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the Union to main- 
tain, and preserve inviolate, every provision of our federal Constitution. 

Resolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Consti- 
tution, should be respected as such by all good and law-abiding citizens, and 
should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged with its execu- 
tion. 

Resolved, That so long as the Constitution of the United States provides 
that all persons held to service or labor in one state, escaping into another 
state, ' • shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom the serv- 
ice or labor may be due," and so long as members of Congress are required 
to take an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and religious 
duty to pass all laws necessary to carry that provision of the Constitution into 
effect. 

Resolved, That if we desire to preserve the Union, and render our great 
republic inseparable and perpetual, we must perform all our obligations under 
the Constitution, at the same time that we call upon our brethren in other 
states to yield impicit obedience to it. 

Resolved, That as the lives, property, and safety of ourselves and our fami- 
lies depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to 
excite any portion of our population to make resistance to the due execution 
of the laws of the land should be promptly and emphatically condemned by 
every good citizen. 

Resolved, That we will stand or fall by the American Union and its Con- 
stitution, with all its compromises, with its glorious memories of the past and 
precious hopes of the future. 

[The following was offered in addition by B. S. Morris, and also adopted :] 

Resolved, That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions passed 
by the Common Council of Chicago upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave 
Law passed by Congress at its last session. 

On the succeeding night the Common Council of the city repealed their 
nullifying resolution by a vote of 12 to 1. 



THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA ACT. 187 



CHAPTER X. 

THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA ACT. 

"Whatevee question or doubt may have existed or may now 
exist as to the authorship of the Compromise Acts of 1850 re- 
specting the Territories, there is not the slightest question as 
to where the responsibility — the honor or blame, the credit or 
odium — for the Kansas-Nebraska Act, belongs. No one has 
denied that to Stephen A. Douglas belongs whatever fame 
that justly attaches to an act of legislation, which has been 
more celebrated (for the censure by its enemies, and praise by 
its friends) than any act of Congress since the foundation of 
the government. During its pendency it was used as a pre- 
text by the fanatics of the North for the wildest exhibition of 
ungovernable fury. It drew upon its author the most un- 
bounded abuse and denunciation ; while it was pending in 
Congress a storm, such as has never been known in the politi- 
cal annals of the country was gathering, and it broke with all 
its force upon his head. Undismayed by threats, he followed 
the chart that he had laid down, and has lived to see himself 
the political hero and leader of his own party in all those 
states where the storm beat fastest and raged the fiercest. 

Though Mr. Douglas has gained all the credit and all the 
opprobrium of the " Nebraska Bill," and to a great extent his 
name is more prominently associated with that, than with any 
previous act of public interest, the truth is, that the Kansas- 
Nebraska Act and its repeal of the Missouri restriction was not 
an original measure. It was but a second volume in the his- 
tory of the struggle for popular right, commenced in the con- 
test over the Compromise of 1850 ; it was but another act in 
the grand drama which in 1850 had ended with a full recog- 
nition of the freedom of the American people, whether in 
state or territory, to regulate their own domestic relations 
without interference by Congress. The Kansas-Nebraska Act 
was nothing more nor less than an act to extend to the people 
of Kansas and Nebraska the same rights and privileges which, 
in 1850, by the advice, by the aid and support of the patriot 



188 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Henry Clay, had been extended to the people of Utah and 
New Mexico. Search the bill from one end to the other, ex- 
amine in detail all its provisions, and it will be found to con- 
tain no more and no less than that the free, hardy, white 
American settlers of Kansas and Nebraska shall have the 
same right to govern themselves that in 1850 was extended 
to the semi-civilized and amalgamated races that peopled the 
newly acquired Territories of New Mexico and Utah. 

But, it is said, in passing that bill, Douglas repealed the 
Missouri restriction — repealed the act of Congress which de- 
clared that north of the line of 30° 30' slavery should not exist, 
and that south of it, it might exist. It repealed a guaranty 
and a prohibition — both wrong in principle, unconstitutional, 
and wholly inconsistent with any sound rule of justice and 
propriety. The people north of 36° 30' were as much entitled 
to have slaves if they desired them as the people south of that 
line, and the restriction was not upon slavery but upon the 
freedom and political rights of the people. South of 36° 30' 
the people were recognized as capable of self government and 
as safe depositaries of the power to have or reject the institu- 
tion of slavery, while those living north of that line were 
bound with the degrading limitation — that if left to govern 
themselves they would certainly misuse the power to their 
own injury. It was a restriction which in terms and effect 
discriminated against the intelligence and capacity of the 
northern people. 

As has been shown in the brief history, given in these pages, 
of the Compromise measures of 1850, the struggle in those 
days was over the question whether the people should be al- 
lowed to legislate to the exclusion or introduction of African 
slavery. The struggle took place on the "Omnibus Bill," 
and so decisive and complete was the action then, that when 
that Omnibus broke down, and Mr. Douglas' separate mea- 
sures came up, the attempt to take that power out of the 
hands of the people was not renewed, and the bills passed 
without a question on that point. 

In 1854, when it became necessary to establish a territorial 
government over the western territory — a proposition long 
pending but never seriously needed until then — Mr. Douglas, 
as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, regarding the 
action of the Senate and of Congress upon the Compromise 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 189 

Acts of 1850, and also the emphatic endorsement of those 
measures by the people in 1852, as conclusive as to the princi- 
ples upon which the Territorial question should be governed, 
so framed his bill as to make it identical in all essential mat- 
ters with the acts of 1850. On the 4th of January he re- 
ported the bill for the establishment of a territorial govern- 
ment for Nebraska, and at the same time made a written 
report which stated that the bill was designed to carry out in 
good faith the principle adopted by Congress in the measures 
of 1850, and the report closed as follows: 

From these provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 
affirm and rest upon the following propositions : 

First, — That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in the 
new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people 
residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for 
that purpose. 

Second. — That "all cases involving title to slaves," and " questions of per- 
sonal freedom," are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the 
right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Third. — That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in 
respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all 
" the organized territories" the same as in the states. The substitute for the 
bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the 
favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and princi- 
ples into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise meas- 
ures of 1850. 

It will be seen by the report that the committee did not rec- 
ommend the repeal, in express terms, of the Missouri restric- 
tion, though they declared that the bill, as reported by them, 
left the question of slavery in the territory "to the decision 
of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representa- 
tives chosen by them for that purpose." Their object was to 
leave the people of Nebraska and Kansas, as the people of 
Utah and New Mexico had been left, free to act for them- 
selves in the matter of slavery. That part of the report has 
been frequently quoted by the enemies of popular right to 
show that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an 
" after-thought," and agreed upon afterwards at the dictation 
of the " slave oligarchy." The committee stated distinctly that 
they designed to leave the people of the territory, through 
their legislature, all the legislative power over slavery, and all 
other questions, that was conceded by the legislature of 1850 
to the Territories of Utah and New Mexico. The committee 
evidently supposed and intended that the words of the bill 



190 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

declaring " that the legislative power of said territory shall 
extend to all rightful subjects of legislation," removed all ob- 
stacles to the exercise of that power over the subject of slavery ; 
and that, therefore, the act of Congress interdicting slavery 
might be left, as was the Mexican law in the other cases, to 
the courts for a decision as to its authority and legal force. 
Be that as it may, the committee soon found that a wide dif- 
ference of opinion prevailed in the Senate as to the effect of 
the language of the bill. Did it leave the territorial legisla- 
ture free to act upon the subject of slavery? How could the 
legislature act when an act of Congress stood in their way pro- 
hibiting the existence of slavery north of 36° 30'. It was 
necessary to make the bill clear and distinct upon this point. 
Did the Missouri restriction bind the hands of the territorial 
legislature against the admission of slavery? If it did, then 
while that restriction existed as a law the people of Nebraska 
could not be admitted to the enjoyment of the same freedom 
in legislation that was secured by the acts of 1850 to the peo- 
ple of Utah and New Mexico; and consequently the principle 
of the Compromise Act could not be applied to the territorial 
act designed for Nebraska and Kansas. The removal of the 
Missouri restriction was imperatively necessary if the territo- 
rial legislature was to be left free to exercise the power of legis- 
lation respecting African slavery. To do that — to remove all 
obstacles in the way of the free and full exercise of legislative 
power over that as well as all other subjects of domestic concern 
— the Missouri restriction was repealed ; it was repealed for no 
other reason, because there was no other possible reason for 
repealing it. It stood in the way of the practical application 
of the principle established in the acts of 1850. If allowed to 
stand, it would create the necessity for the organization of ter- 
ritorial governments for Nebraska and Kansas on a principle 
and theory totally distinct and different from that followed in 
the cases of Utah and New Mexico. The North, in 1850, had 
perseveringly and successfully struggled for the recognition 
of the power and authority of the territorial legislature over 
the subject of African slavery. The North, by an almost unani- 
mous vote for Scott and Pierce in 1852, had approved and 
ratified the action of Congress in 1850. Was the North now, 
in 1854, to change front? Was the North to repudiate the 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 191 

principles it had asserted in 1850, and clamor again for the 
empty and valueless Congressional prohibition ? 

On the first day of the session Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, gave 
notice of his intention to introduce a bill for the government 
of the Territory of Nebraska ; on the 4th of December he did 
introduce the bill, which was referred to the Committee on 
Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was chairman. On the 4th 
of January Mr. Douglas, as has been stated, reported the bill 
back with amendments. On the 23d of January the commit- 
tee made the report already noticed, and reported a further 
amendment dividing the immense region into two territories, 
Kansas and Nebraska. This division was made upon the soli- 
citation of the representatives of the people of the territory, 
and by the advice of the representatives in Congress from Iowa 
and Missouri. 

In the meantime, on the 16th of January, Mr. Dixon, of Ken- 
tucky, had given notice that when the bill was taken up for 
action he would offer as an amendment the following : 

" That so much of the eighth section of an act approved March 6, 1820, 
entitled ' An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a 
Constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into 
the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery 
in certain territories,' as declares 'that in all that territory ceded by Franco 
to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty- 
six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude, 
otherwise than as a punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been 
duly convicted, shall be forever prohibited,' shall not be so construed as to 
apply to the territory contemplated by this act, or to any other territory of 
the United States ; but that the citizens of the several states or territories shall 
be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the territories of the 
United States or of the states to be formed therefrom, as if the said act, entitled 
as aforesaid, and approved as aforesaid, had never been passed." 

Here was the same proposition which in 1850 had been re- 
jected by Congress, and voted down by the friends of the 
Compromise. It was a proposition declaring the right of the 
slaveholder to carry his slaves into the territory. In 1850, 
those who supported the right of the territorial legislature to 
legislate on that subject refused to declare by Congressional 
act the right to take slaves into the territory, because such a 
provision in an act of Congress would override an act of the 
territorial legislature. In the bill, as reported on the 23d of 
January, the committee expressed more clearly what was ori- 
aDy their intention respecting the removal of the Missouri 



192 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

restriction. In the fourteenth Section of the Nebraska-Kansas 

act they provided : 

" That the Constitution and all laws of the United States -which are not 
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said terri- 
tory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States ; except the eighth 
section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, 
approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which was superseded 
by the principles of the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly 
called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative." 

We doubt whether in the history of legislation any one sen- 
tence in a proposed measure ever furnished the pretext for a 
political agitation equal to that which followed the report Of 
the above. 

The necessity for repealing the Missouri restriction, if it was 
intended to frame the Nebraska bill by the principles of the 
acts of 1850, had been seen as well by the extremists at the 
north as by those of the south ; and, almost simultaneously 
with Mr. Dixon's proposition to extend slavery, another was 
presented by Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, that nothing con- 
tained in the bill " shall be construed to abrogate or in any 
way contravene the act of March 6, 1820," in which it was 
declared that slavery was prohibited in the Louisiana territory 
north of 36° 30'. 

Here was the old contest of 1850 about to be renewed. 
The Dixon amendment, proposing to recognize an extension 
of slavery by Congressional enactment ; the Stunner amend- 
ment proposing a Congressional prohibition of slavery. Both 
were opposed to and inconsistent with the right of the terri- 
torial legislature to regulate that as well as all other domestic 
relations ; which right having been expressly conceded to the 
people of New Mexico and Utah by the acts of 1850, it was 
the aim and purpose of Mr. Douglas to secure to the people 
of Nebraska and Kansas. He rejected both propositions, and 
adhered to the principle and policy so emphatically sanctioned 
in 1850 by Congress and subsequently ratified by the people. 

On Tuesday, January 24, the bill was taken up. Mr. 
Chase, of Ohio, urged that the Senate had not had an oppor- 
tunity of examining the bill; he said, "only yesterday the 
committee changed the form of the bill altogether, and pro- 
posed to create two territories instead of one, and also changed 
materially the provisions upon other questions of very great 
public interest ; and the bill thus having been changed in fact 






THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 193 

into two bills, has been only laid on the tables of Senators this 
morning, and I presume no one has had an opportunity to 
read it. It involves very important matters, and I think that 
when we take it up it should be with a determination to pro- 
ceed with it until it shall be disposed of." He then urged that 
it be postponed until the next week. 

Mr. Sumner suggested that it be postponed until the 31st of 
January. ' 

Mr. Douglas acquiesced in the request, and on his motion 
the bill was postponed to Monday, January 30th. 

This request to postpone an important bill for one week 
may seem to the reader to have been a trivial matter for 
special notice here, but it subsequently became the subject of 
a protracted and exciting debate. The request was made on 
Tuesday, January 24th. On the Monday after, January 30th, 
the bill was again taken up, and the request of Mr. Chase, 
with its purposes and aims, were made historical in all their 
infamy. 

As soon as the bill was taken up Mr. Douglas said : 

" When I proposed, on Tuesday last, that the Senate should proceed to the 
consideration of the bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, 
it was my purpose only to occupy ten or fifteen minutes in explanation of its 
provisions. I desired to refer to two points — first, to those provisions relating* 
to the Indians, and second, to those which might be supposed to bear upon 
the question of slavery. * * * * 

"Upon the other point — that pertaining to the question of slavery in the 
territories — it was the intention of the committee to be equally explicit. "We 
took the principles established by the compromise acts of 1850 as our guide, 
and intended to make each and every provision of the bill accord with these 
principles. These measures are established and rest upon the great principles 
of self-government — that the people should be allowed to decide the ques- 
tions of their domestic institutions for themselves, subject only to such limita- 
tions and restrictions as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, 
instead of having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line. 

" The original bill reported by the committee as a substitute for the bill in- 
troduced by the senator from Iowa (Mr. Dodge), was believed to have accom- 
plished this object. The amendment winch was subsequently reported by us 
was only designed to render that clear and specific which seemed, in the 
minds of some, to admit of doubt and misconstruction. In some parts of the 
country the original substitute was deemed and construed to be an annul- 
ment or a repeal of what has been known as the Missouri Compromise, 
while in other parts it was otherwise construed. As the object of the com- 
mittee was to conform to the principles established by the compromise meas- 
ures of 1850, and to carry these principles into effect in the territories, we 
thought it was better to recite in the bill precisely what we understood to 
have been accomplished by those measures, viz., that the Missouri Compro- 
mise, having been superseded by the legislation of 1850, has become, and 
ought to be declared, inoperative ; and hence we propose to leave the ques- 

1 



194 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tiou to the people of the states and the territories, subject only to the limita- 
tions and provisions of the Constitution. 

" Sir, this is all that I intended to say if the question had been taken up for 
consideration on Tuesday last, but since that time occurrences have transpired 
which compel me to go more fully into the discussion. It will be borne in 
mind that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase), then objected to the considera- 
tion of the bill, and asked for its postponement until this day, on the ground 
that there had not been time to understand and consider its provisions ; and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) suggested that the postpone- 
ment should be for one week for that purpose. These suggestions seeming to 
be reasonable in the opinion of senators around me I yielded to their request, 
and consented to the postponement of the bill until this day. 

" Sir. little did I suppose, at the time that I granted that act of courtesy to 
those two senators, that they had drafted and published to the world a docu- 
ment, over their own signatures, in which they arraigned me as having been 
guilty of a criminal betrayal of my trust, as having been guilty of an act of 
bad faith, and as having been engaged in an atrocious plot against the cause 
of free government. Little did I suppose that those two senators had been 
guilty of such conduct, when they called upon me to grant that courtesy, to 
give them an opportunity of investigating the substitute reported by the com- 
mittee. I have since discovered that on that very morning the National Era, 
the abolition organ in this city, contained an address, signed by certain aboli- 
tion confederates, to the people, in which the bill is grossly misrepresented, 
in which the action of the committee is grossly perverted, in which our mo- 
tives are arraigned and our characters calumniated. And, sir, what is more,^ 
I find that there was a postscript added to the address, published that very 
morning, in which the principal amendment reported by the committee was 
set out, and then coarse epithets applied to me by name. Sir, had I known 
those facts at the time I granted that act of indulgence, I should have re- 
sponded to the request of those senators in such terms as their conduct 
deserved, so far as the rules of the Senate and a respect for my own character 
would have permitted me £o do. In order to show the character of this docu- 
ment, of which I shall have much to say in the course of my argument, I 
will read certain passages : 

" 'We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a crim- 
inal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to 
exclude from a vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World and free 
laborers from our own states, and convert it into a dreary region of despot- 
ism, inhabited by masters and slaves.' 

U A Senator. By whom is the address signed? 

" Mr. Douglas. It is signed 'S. P. Chase, senator from Ohio, Charles Sum- 
ner, senator from Massachusetts, J. It. Giddings and Edward Wade, repre- 
sentatives from Ohio, Gerrit Smith, representative from New York, Alexan- 
der De Witt, representative from Massachusetts;' including, as I understand, 
all the abolition party in Congress. 

" Then, speaking of the Committee on Territories, these confederates use 
this language : 

" ' The pretences, therefore, that the territory, covered by the positive pro- 
hibition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from 
Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or 
Mexican law, and that the Compromises of 1850 require the incorporation of 
the pro-slavery clause of the Utah and New Mexico bill in the Nebraska act, 
are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditaied 
bad faith,. 1 

" ' Mere inventions to cover up bad faith,' Again: 



THE KAN3AS-NEBEAKA ACT. 195 

" ' Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained only 
by submitting to the demands of slavery.' " 

"Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in which I am 
mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an appeal to the Legisla- 
tures of the different states, to public meetings, and to ministers of the gospel 
in their pulpits, to interpose and arrest the vile proceeding which is about to 
be consummated by the senators who are thus denounced. That address, sir, 
bears date Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears that on the holy 
Sabbath, while other senators were engaged in divine worship, these abolition 
confederates were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by what means they 
should deceive the people of the United States, and prostrate the character of 
brother senators. This was done on the Sabbath day, and by a set of poli- 
ticians, to advance their own political and ambitious purposes, in the name of 
our holy religion. 

" But this is not all. It was understood from the newspapers that resolutions 
were pending before the Legislature of Ohio proposing to express their opinions 
upon this subject. It was necessary for these confederates to get up some 
exposition of the question by which they might facilitate the passage of the 
resolutions through that Legislature. Hence you find that on the same morn- 
ing that this document appears over the names of these confederates in the 
abolition organs in this city, the same document appears in the New York 
papers — certainly in the Tribune, Times, and Evening Post — in which it stated, 
on authority, that it is ' signed by the senators and a majority of the repre- 
sentatives from the State of Ohio' — a statement which I have every reason to 
believe was utterly false, and known to be so at the time that these confed- 
erates appended it to the address. It was necessary in order to carry out this 
work of deception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio Legislature, under a 
misapprehension of the real facts, to state that it was signed, not only by the 
abolition confederates, but by the whole "Whig representation, and a portion of 
the Democratic representation in the other House from the State of Ohio. 

" Mr. Chase. Mr. President — 

" Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I do not yield the floor. A senator who has 
violated all the rules of courtesy and propriety, who showed a consciousness 
of the character of the act he was doing by concealing from me all knowledge 
of the fact — who came to me with a smiling face, and the appearance of 
friendship, even after that document had been uttered — who could get up in 
the Senate and appeal to my courtesy in order to get time to give the docu- 
ment a wider circulation before its infamy could be exposed — such a senator has 
no right to my courtesy upon this floor." 

Mr. Douglas then, in an argument extended over two hours, 
discussed the general history of the legislation by Congress 
upon the subject of slavery in Congress, and in defense of his 
position that the principle established in the acts of 1850 was 
inconsistent with a congressional prohibition of slavery, such 
as was contained in the eighth section of the Missouri Act. 

Mr. Chase followed in a lame apology. He ignored the fact 
that on the 24th he had suggested that no senator had read 
the bill. He admitted that the address had been published in 
one New York paper on the 23d, and said that the date pre- 
fixed to the document as printed was a typographical error 



196 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The representation made that the address bore the signatures 
of a majority of the Ohio delegates was made under an impres- 
sion that they would sign it ; but as alterations in the docu- 
ment were demanded, which could not be conceded, the 
address had been sent out in the original form by those whose 
names had been attached to it. He produced a copy of the 
address bearing date January 19th, yet even in that copy there 
was set forth a correct copy of the fourteenth section of the 
bill as reported by the Committee on Territories on Monday, 
January 23d. How a copy of that section had been obtained, 
so as to incorporate it in an address bearing date the 19th, 
was not explained. 

Mr. Sumner declined any explanation. He fell back upon his 
dignity, and assumed all the responsibility for what he had done. 

The trick, so far as it was designed to create a false impres- 
sion of the character of the bill, and to produce a violent hos- 
tility to it, founded upon that false impression, was more suc- 
cessful, perhaps, than any like disreputable act had ever been. 
The Legislatures of most of the states were then in session ; 
this address reached the members ; no explanation of the bill 
had been made in Congress ; its terms and provisions had not 
been published in the newspapers of the day. The address 
was sent all over the North. It found its way by hundreds 
into every village in the Northern states. Petitions and re- 
monstrances were printed and sent abroad for signatures. In 
the absence of all explanations or counter statements, the lan- 
guage of the address was well calculated to produce alarm and 
excitement. Its appeals were earnest, and its authors had not 
hesitated to assert untruths whenever such would serve to 
make their appeal more forcible or their pathos more sensa- 
tional. 

Here is an extract : 

" Take your maps, fellow-citizens, we entreat you, and see what country it 
is which this bill, gratuitously and recklessly, proposes to open to slavery." 

" This immense region, occupying the very heart of the North American 
continent, and larger by thirty-three thousand square miles than all the ex- 
isting free states, excluding California, — this immense region, well watered 
and fertile, through which the middle and northern routes, from the Atlantic 
to the Pacific must pass, — this immense region, embracing all the unorgan- 
ized territory of the nation, except the comparatively insignificant district 
of Indian Territory north of Red River, and between Arkansas and Texas, 
and now for more than thirty years regarded by the common consent of the 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 197 

American people as consecrated to freedom by statute and compact — this 
immense region the hill now before the Senate, without reason and without 
excuse, but in flagrant disregard of sound policy and sacred faith, purposes to 
open to slavery.'''' ****** 

" We confess our total inability properly to delineate the character or de- 
scribe the consequences of this measure. Language fails to express the senti- 
ments of indignation and abhorrence which it inspires ; and no vision less 
penetrating and comprehensive than that of the All-Seeing can reach its evil 
issues. 

" "We appeal to the people. "We warn you that the dearest interests of free- 
dom and the Union are in imminent peril. 

" We implore Christians and Christian ministers to interpose. Their divine 
religion requires them to behold in every man a brother, and to labor for the 
advancement and regeneration of the human race." 

Reader, the bill of which these men were writing was one 
declaring that the free white men of Nebraska and Kansas, 
like their countrymen in the states and territories, were cap- 
able of self-government, and that they were of right entitled 
to and ought to be allowed the privilege of legislating as freely 
upon the subject of African slavery as upon any other question 
of territorial government. 

The circulation of this address was promptly followed by 
every possible effort to prejudice the public mind against the 
bill. Thousands of the people did get alarmed. They did 
believe that " the interests of freedom and the Union were in 
imminent peril." Agitation was incessant; excitement fol- 
lowed agitation and in a few weeks the evil work of misrepre- 
sentation and fanaticism had accomplished to a great extent 
its ends. Christian ministers in all sincerity believed the state- 
ments of the address. They never supposed that men holding 
high position as senators would, under an appeal in the name 
of Christianity, promulgate the wildest perversions of truth. 
They thought that an irreparable evil was threatened in the 
Nebraska bill ; they, therefore, hurriedly affixed their names 
to printed petitions prepared and distributed among them. 
By the trick described, the conspirators had gained an advan- 
tage over the supporters of the bill. Their address had been 
issued ten days before any explanation of the bill had been 
made, and when that explanation was made, it was impossible 
to send it where the address had gone. In the interval, an 
opposition to the bill, and a prejudice against its author and 
supporters had been established so immovably that it was 
almost useless to rely upon any other means than time to vin- 
dicate the truth. Sb£ 



198 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The Legislature of Rhode Island was the first to respond to 
the address. Resolutions denouncing the bill in general terms 
were promptly introduced and passed both Houses, and were 
actually presented to Congress on that same 30th of January 
when the bill was first taken up for consideration. 

On the 1st of February, Mr. Sumner presented a memorial 
from citizens of Pennsylvania remonstrating against the exten- 
sion of slavery to territory from which it had been excluded 
by the Missouri Compromise ; and thenceforth, day after day 
until a late period of the session, and long after the passage of 
the act, petitions and remonstrances, responsive to the address, 
were presented to both Houses of Congress. It was soon an- 
nounced and was so stated in debate in Congress, that the 
great body of the clergy of the North were uniting in a pro- 
test against the bill. Though not chronologically in order at 
this point of the history of the bill, yet, as it formed part, and 
a leading part, of the great warfare made upon the bill and its 
author, it may as well be noticed at this time. The form of 
the remonstrance or protest was the same in all parts of the 
country. The protest subsequently presented to the Senate 
by Mr. Everett from the three thousand and fifty clergymen 
of New England was in the following words : 

" To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress 
asse%nbled : 

"The undersigned, clergymen of different religious denominations in New 
England, hereby, in the name of Almighty G-od, and in his presence, do so- 
lemnly protest against the passage of what is known as the Nebraska bill, or 
any repeal or modification of the existing legal prohibitions of slavery in that 
part of our national domain which it is proposed to organize into the Terri- 
tories of Nebraska and Kansas. We protest against it as a great moral wrong, 
as a breach of faith, eminently unjust to the moral principles of the community 
and subversive of all confidence in national engagements ; as a measure full of 
danger to the peace and even the existence of our beloved Union, and expos- 
ing us to the righteous judgments of the Almighty ; and your protestants, as 
in duty bound, will ever pray. 

"Boston, Massachusetts, March 1, 1854." 

This memorial, or protest, as was explained by Mr. Everett, 
though dated March 1, had been signed by nearly all the pro- 
testants long previous to that day. It had taken weeks to col- 
lect and arrange all the signatures, and its date was probably 
the day on which the roll was completed and forwarded to 
Washington. It was presented to the Senate by Mr. Everett 
on March 14 — ten days after the bill had passed the Senate. 



THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA ACT. 199 

A debate ensued, and a warm one. The protestants were 
charged with having assumed an authority which they did not 
possess ; that they presumed to speak to the Senate in the 
name of the Almighty, and to pronounce his judgments upon 
the Senate for their conduct in passing the measure. Mr. 
Douglas bore a conspicuous part in this debate. A similar 
memorial from clergymen in the northwest was subsequently 
forwarded to him for presentation, and upon matters growing 
out of that he expressed his sentiments at large, in speeches 
and by letter. 

On the 27th of March a meeting was held in Chicago, at 
which twenty-five clergymen were present. They adopted a 
protest against the Nebraska bill, and passed a series of reso- 
lutions denouncing Mr. Douglas and other senators for their 
remarks upon the protest of the New England clergymen. 
Printed slips of the proceedings of the meeting and of the pro- 
test and resolutions were forwarded to Mr. Douglas. He, 
under date of April 6, addressed a very elaborate letter to the 
reverend gentlemen composing the meeting, in which he de- 
fended himself and his fellow-senators from unjust accusations 
set forth in the resolutions. 

In replying to the reflections cast upon him by the resolu- 
tions, he quoted the protest adopted at the meeting, from the 
printed slips and newspapers of Chicago sent to him. 

On the 8th of May following, Mr. Douglas presented to the 
Senate a protest which the Rev. A. M. Stewart certified to be 
a true copy of the protest adopted at the meeting of the 
twenty-five clergymen at Chicago on the 27th of March. It 
had been detained until it had received the signatures of 504 
clergymen of the northwest. As in his letter he had treated 
the protest adopted by these gentlemen as identical in terms 
with that of the New England clergymen, and as the one 
communicated to him by Mr. Stewart was quite different, in- 
asmuch as that it did not contain the words " in the name of 
Almighty God," Mr. Douglas explained his action in the 
matter. He had received from Chicago an envelope containing 
a printed slip with the proceedings of the meeting ; he had 
also received copies of two of the daily papers — both hostile 
to him politically, in which the protest and resolutions were 
set forth over the signatures of the officers of the meeting, 
precisely as he had quoted them in his letter. He had never 



200 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

doubted the correctness of those published reports of the pro- 
ceedings, until after the publication of his letter of reply. He 
then read in one of the Chicago abolition papers a series of let- 
ters written by " one of the twenty-five," in which he was ac- 
cused of having attributed language to the Chicago clergymen 
which they had not employed, and denounced for having re- 
primanded them unjustly. 

Mr. Douglas in explaining this matter in the Senate, said : 

" After seeing the denials to which I have referred, I wrote to Chicago to as- 
certain how the mistake occurred. My letters inform me that the facts are 
these: The meeting was held on the day stated, the 27th of March. The 
proceedings of the meeting were furnished by the secretary to the Chicago 
Tribune, the paper which they have selected as their organ. They were 
printed at the Tribune office ; slips were sent to the other papers ; and the 
slip sent to me contained the proceedings of that meeting, as furnished by the 
secretary. But after the publication, and when the community condemned 
the blasphemy of the protest, and these clergymen found that their own con- 
gregations would not submit to it, one of them called upon the editor, took 
back the proceedings, alleged that there was an error in them, struck out 
those words, and had the proceedings republished as corrected, but did not 
send the republication to me, and I never knew of it until I wrote to Chicago 
for the facts. I do not complain of their withdrawing the expression referred 
to. I am glad they did so. I am glad they saw the error which they had 
committed, and corrected it. But, sir, I submit to you whether it was right 
for men, fair-minded men, whatever their profession, after changing their me- 
morial, to come out and charge me with fraud, because I replied to it in the 
language in which they sent it to me. I admit their right to make the modi- 
fication. It was their duty to make that modification. But why persevere 
in a charge running tlirough five numbers of a newspaper, over the signature 
of " One of the Twenty-five," endeavoring to fasten fraud upon me, when I 
have evidence to prove that they published their memorial in the shape in 
which I answered it ? I received it from them in that shape. I answered it 
as I found it ; and if they have discovered their error, and corrected it, they 
ought to acknowledge the fact, instead of charging fraud on me. I make no 
charge against them ,• I am only vindicating myself. But, as far as I can see, 
the only change was in these words. Now, let me go a little further, and as- 
sume that these words, 'in the name of Almighty God,' got into their me- 
morial by mistake ; why did they not call upon the editor of their paper, who 
published it, to explain how that mistake occurred, instead of charging it 
upon me ?" 

This matter may seem to be unworthy the space it occupies, 
yet it serves to show how pertinaciously and unjustly he was 
pursued by those who honestly or otherwise regarded the 
Nebraska Act as a wrong. For months he was denounced 
through all the opposition papers of the North with having 
falsified the protest of the clergy of Chicago in order to write 
a reply ; and with having attributed to them language which 
they had never used. Nor was the denunciation confined to 
that point. As early as the 4th of March, he and the Neb- 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 201 

raska Bill bad been denounced from a pulpit in Chicago, and 
the sermon on that occasion had been printed and widely cir- 
culated. That was long before the protest of the New Eng- 
land clergy had been presented to or discussed in the Senate. 

He had no paper in Chicago to defend the bill or himself. 
He was exposed to a constant warfare from all quarters, and 
had no means of defence. All the Chicago papers were open 
to condemn, none ventured a word in his behalf. It was his 
home ; it was the great city of the northwest. There, in pre- 
ference to all other places he needed defence, yet there he was 
left alone to meet the storm which falsehood, private and poli- 
tical malice, disappointed ambition and open knavery, were 
fast gathering to meet him on his return. 

ISTow to return to the bill before the Senate. 

Mr. Chase had the floor to reply to Mr. Douglas, but not 
being prepared to go on with his argument, he asked, and the 
Senate granted, a postponement until the Friday following, 
on that day he made an extended argument. On the 7th of 
February, the debate having progressed in the meantime, Mr. 
Douglas moved an amendment to the fourteenth section of 
the bill, so as that part of the bill would read as follows : 

" That the Constitution and laws of the United States, which are not lo- 
cally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Terri- 
tory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth 
section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, 
approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non- 
intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories as recog- 
nized by the legislation of 1850, (commonly called the Compromise measure) 
is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning 
of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude 
it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu- 
late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Consti- 
tution of the United States." 

This amendment was agreed to on the 15th, by a vote of— 
yeas 35, nays 10. 

THE CELEBRATED " CHASE AMENDMENT." 

On the 15th of February Mr. Chase proposed to insert im- 
mediately after the words above given, as having been put 
into the bill on the motion of Mr. Douglas, the following : 

" Under which (the Constitution of the United States) the 
people of the territory, through their appropriate representa- 
. 12 



202 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery 
therein." 

As it has of late become a matter of doubt in the minds of 
some gentlemen who voted for and supported the Nebraska 
Bill, as to whether any one had ever suggested, while it was 
pending, that under its provisions the people of the territo- 
ries, through their Legislature, would have the power to 
legislate upon the subject of slavery ; and as the action of the 
Senate upon this amendment of Mr. Chase has been quoted 
by all the Republican papers, by executive officers and 
authority, and has even been published in official journals 
over the signature of an intelligent senator (possibly by 
others), as conclusive evidence that the Senate did not intend 
to concede any such power in the Territorial Legislature, it is 
necessary for the sake of truth, if not of justice, and not for 
the purpose of contradicting the statement or calling in ques- 
tion the veracity of any person, that a somewhat extended 
notice of what took place on this amendment should be given. 

For a more clear understanding of what occurred it should 
be borne in mind that the bill had been reported with an 
amendment — the latter in the nature of a substitute for the 
former. The substitute was the measure which the friends of 
the bill were maturing. The general question pending was 
on the adoption of the substitute in lieu of the bill. Pending 
that question it was in order to amend the substitute, which 
was of itself a pending amendment. Beyond an amendment 
to an amendment parliamentary law does not admit a proposal 
to amend. Consequently Mr. Chase's motion was an amend- 
ment to an amendment, and was not of itself open to amend- 
ment, unless he voluntarily modified his own motion. 

In proposing his amendment Mr. Chase thus stated its 
" design :" 

"Now, I desire to have the sense of the Senate upon the question, whether 
or not, under the limitations of the Constitntion of the United States, the 
people of the territories can prohibit the existence of slavery." 

Mr. Pratt, of Maryland, promptly responded : 

_ " The principle which the senator from Ohio has announced as the prin- 
ciple of his amendment is, that the question shall be left entirely and ex- 
clusively to the people of the territories whether they will prohibit slavery 
or not. Now, for the purpose of testing the sincerity of the senator, and for 
the purpose of deducing the principle in his amendment correctly, I propose 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 203 

to amend it by inserting after the word ' prohibit ' the words ' or introduce' • 
so that if my amendment be adopted, and the amendment of the senator from 
Ohio, as so amended, be introduced as part of the bill, the principle which he 
says he desires to have tested here will be inserted in the bill, that the people 
of the territories shall have power either to introduce or prohibit slavery as 
they may think proper. I suppose the question will be first taken on the 
amendment which I offer to the amendment." 

Messrs. Seward and Chase at once raised the question that 
as an amendment (Chase's) to an amendment (the substitute) 
was pending, no further amendment was in order ; and the 
Chair necessarily ruled Mr. Pratt's motion out of order. 
After some debate 

Mr. Shields said : If the honorable senator (Mr. Chase) will permit me, I 
will suggest to him, if he wishes to test that proposition, to put the converse, 
as suggested by the honorable senator from Maryland, and then it will he a 
fair proposition. Let the senator from Ohio accept the amendment of the 
senator from Maryland, for the purpose of testing the question. 

Mr. Chase : I was about to state why I could not accept the amendment 
of the senator from Maryland. I have no objection that the vote should be 
taken upon it, and it is probable that it would receive the sanction of a ma- 
jority here ; but with my views of the Constitution I cannot vote for it. I 
do not believe that a Territorial Legislature, though it may have the power to 
protect the people against slavery, is constitutionally competent to intro- 
duce it. 

****** 

Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, having called for the read- 
ing of the amendment, said : 

Mr. President : I have understood, I find correctly, the purport of the 
amendment offered by the honorable senator from Ohio. The purpose of the 
amendment and the effect of the amendment, if adopted by the Senate and 
standing as he proposes, are clear and obvious. The effect of the amend- 
ment and the design of the amendment are to overrule and subvert the very 
proposition introduced into the bill upon the motion of the chairman of the 
Committee on Territories. Is not that clear ? The provision as it stands, 
since the amendment has been adopted, is an unrestricted and unreserved 
reference to the territorial authorities or the people themselves to determine 
upon the question of slavery ; and therefore by the very terms, as well as by 
the obvious meaning and legal operation of that amendment, to enable them 
either to exclude or to introduce or allow slavery. 

" If, therefore, the amendment proposed by the senator from Ohio were 
appended to the bill in the connection in which he introduces it, the neces- 
sary and inevitable effect of it would be to control and limit the language 
which the Senate has just put into the bill, and to give it this construction : 
that though Congress leaves them to regulate their own domestic institutions 
as they please, yet, in regard to the subject matter of slavery, the power is 
confined to the exclusion or prohibition of it. I say this is both the legal 
effect and the manifest design of the amendment. The legal effect is obvious 
upon the statement. The design is obvious upon the refusal of the gentle- 
man to incorporate in his amendment what was suggested by my honorable 
friend from Maryland, the propriety and fairness of which was instantly seen 



204 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields).* Is it proposed by the senator to 
test the question whether these people shall expressly have authority to de- 
termine for themselves upon the existence of this domestic relation ? If so, 
and the language just put into the bill is not sufficiently explicit, in his 
estimation, is it not beyond all question that you should put in the words 
' or introduce ?' Under the bill, as it stands, the people may regulate their 
domestic relation as they see fit ; but, says the amendment of the senator 
from Ohio, that shall enable them, under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery. 
What is the effect of that amendment but to modify, reduce, restrain, and 
bring down the latitude of authority conferred upon them by the previous 
language just incorporated into the bul." * * * 

" Xow, sir, the true, direct, and manly course to meet this question is that 
suggested by my honorable friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields). Put in your 
amendment that the people of the territories shall be at liberty to exclude or 
introduce, and if there is anything in the Constitution of the United States 
which disables a territorial government from introducing slavery, if the hon- 
orable senator believes that, if he is sincere in that opinion, there sits a 
tribunal below us who will pass upon the validity and constitutionality of any 
act that we may pass. 

" I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote against the 
amendment of the senator from Ohio. The clause as it stands is ample. It 
submits the whole authority to the territory to determine for itself. That, in 
my judgment, is the place where it ought to be put. If the people of these 
territories choose to exclude slavery, so far from considering it as a wrong 
done to me or to my constituents, I shall not complain of it. It is their own 
business." 

The debate then became general, and the Senate adjourned 
without taking the question. 

The debate upon the general character of the bill continued 
from day to day until the 2d of March, when the amendment 
proposed by Mr. Chase again was noticed. , 

Mr. Badger again referring to it used the following strong 
language : 

" The language of the bill, as amended upon the motion of the honorable 
chairman of the Committee on Territories, is full, complete, and ample, giving 
the people of these territories, through their governments, the unrestricted and 
unqualified right to decide upon all their domestic relations, slavery included; and 
then the honorable senator from Ohio, as if he supposed that either we were 
so dull that we could not understand, or that the public were so purblind that 
they could not see, proposes to add, as an amendment explanatory of the 
previous language, that they shall have power to prohibit slavery. He knows, 
sir, he means, sir, that that language, so standing, shall have, as in the court 
below it would have, the necessary effect of controlling, limiting, and restrain- 
ing the former language, so that the territories should have no right over this 
subject but to prohibit slavery. If it does not mean this — if he does not intend 
this — why did he refuse to insert the words which the instinctive candor and 
openness of my honorable friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields) suggested ' to pro- 
hibit or allow slavery?' Sir, no member of this body who is in favor of the 
bill need be in the least troubled. 

" The senator from Ohio feels himself bound, in order to resist the introduc- 
tion of slavery into any territory, to disavow the obligation of all compacts, to 
resist the performance of every engagement, to disavow any, however solemn, 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 205 

stipulations. He can never mean but one thing by any amendment which he 
offers to this bill, and that thing is mischief to the measure." 

" Mr. Cass said. * * * Well, sir, the honorable senator from Ohio pro- 
poses to insert a provision to take from the people the power of allowing 
slavery." 

" Mr. Chase. No, sir." 

"Mr. Cass. Certainly; that is the effect of it. You allow them the power 
to prohibit slavery by your amendment, but not to establish it. The original 
provision, as it stands, gives them both powers, subject to the limitations of the 
Constitution. Then the effect of the amendment of the honorable senator from 
Ohio, if adopted, would be to throw doubts upon the preceding provision. If 
we give them both powers, and then, afterwards, in clearer language give but 
one, it is a strong intimation that we destroy the effect of our own previous 
provision. It casts a doubt upon it. The true view, therefore, is to repeat 
both, if repetition is necessary." 

" Mr. Mason, of Virginia, said : I understand the senator from Ohio to say that 
the object of this amendment, and the object of all the other amendments which 
he has offered to the bill, was to place the whole subject of legislation, in its 
most ample form, in the hands of the people of the territories ; and yet he 
offered, I think, as an amendment, a proposition to authorize that people to 
legislate for the prohibition of slavery, and refused the suggestion which came 
from a senator on this floor to give the alternative to the same people, in 
their discretion, to legislate for the admission of slavery. That thing has been 
exposed upon this floor over and over again.'" 

The discussion again wandered from the amendment to a 
variety of topics, some of them personal in their nature. At 
half past six o'clock p. m. the Senate proceeded to vote on the 
amendment, which was rejected as follows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, 
Seward, Smith, Sumner and Wade, 10. 

Nays — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, 
Butler, Clay, of Alabama, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge, of Iowa, Douglas, 
Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, 
of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, 
Slidell, Stuart, Toucey, Walker, Weller, and Williams, 36. 

This is the history of the origin, progress, and fate of the 
Chase amendment. It proposed to allow the people of the 
territories to " prohibit" slavery, but denied to them the power 
to " introduce." It was, in effect, a restriction of the powers 
of the Legislature to a prohibition, when the object of the 
bill was to leave the Legislature free and unrestricted in the 
exercise of all constitutional legislation to prohibit or introduce. 
As General Cass said, it was a proposition to take from the 
Legislature the power to admit slavery 

This amendment has lately been drawn from the records, 
and paraded before the country as conclusive testimony that 
the Senate, including Mr. Douglas, in framing the Kansas- 



208 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the people the right, when they form % State constitution, to decide for 
themselves whether slavery shall exist or not; but in the mean time, while 
it is a territory, they say slavery ought to be excluded. This is like tying a 
man's hands and legs, and telling him to go where he pleases. 

FROM THE SAME SPEECH OF ME. WELLER. 

One of these senators from Ohio (Mr.' "Wade) went so far as to utter this 
sentiment : 

" Sir, in the days of the revolution Major Andre was hung by the neck 
until he was dead for accepting a proposition not more base than this, 
which is a gross betrayal of the rights of the whole North." 

What an Egyptian darkness must have pervaded the mind of that Sena- 
tor before he could have arrived at that conclusion ! "What sad ravages the 
foul spirit of fanaticism must have made upon his heart before he could have 
uttered that sentiment! The simple proposition to leave the people of 
Kansas and Nebraska free and untrammeled to decide on all their local in- 
stitutions for themselves is, in his judgment, a more dishonorable proposi- 
tion than that for which Major Andre was hung ! I pray that God may en- 
lighten the benighted mind of that senator and soften his heart, and that ere 
long he will be restored to a proper degree of judgment and reason — I had 
almost said decency. 

ME. TOUCEY, OF CONNECTICUT. 

Sir, I find no difficulty with regard* to the territorial governments which 
we have had. They are assented to by the people who five under them, 
are adopted by the people, and put in operation by the people ; and when 
the assent of the people and the assent of Congress both combine to uphold 
a government de facto, that government is in the possession of power, and 
it would be very difficult to question its practical validity. And as the 
people participate in territorial legislation, and, in fact, the laws originate 
with them, are proposed and adopted by them, these laws have not only the 
presumed assent of the people, but their express assent also ; and having the 
implied sanction of Congress, if they are consistent with the Constitution, 
there seems to be no element wanting to render them effective to all intents 
and purposes whatsoever. But I mean to say that in the exercise of the 
power over the territories, acquired by the treaty-making power, you are 
bound to exercise that power in conformity with the principles of the Consti- 
tution ; and if you do otherwise, although the law may not reach it, and 
courts of justice may not reach it, yet you are acting unconstitutionally ; and 
if we knowingly and wilhngly violate the principles of government in exer- 
cising the necessary power that arises from the acquisition of territory, we vio- 
late the obligation that is upon us to support the Constitution. When, there- 
fore, this principle of non-interference applies to all the states — applies to 
every state that has come or will come into the Union — when in a very short 
period sovereign states will occupy every foot of territory within the limits of 
the United States, and this principle will become universal, are we justified, 
are we acting in the true spirit of the Constitution, are we not violating the 
obligations upon us, when we trample this principle under foot, and under- 
take to control the domestic relations of a people who are, with our consent, 
in the possession of legislative power, and admitted by us to be capable of 
exercising it ? 

* * -x * 

Why should we undertake in this government here to exercise this power 
of dictating to them ? 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 209 

What right have we, in these Atlantic States, over the people of the re- 
mote territories to dictate law to them ? They are American citizens. They 
have gone into these territories with the full rights of American citizens. 
Why should we seek to exercise this arbitrary power over them? Why 
should we assume on our part to govern them at our will and pleasure ? It 
would be as arbitrary and despotic power as exists anywhere in the civilized 
or uncivilized world. It will be the same arbitrary power wlhch the parlia- 
ment of Great Britain undertook to exercise over the American colonies when 
they resisted and revolted. It will be the despotism practiced by the worst 
governments over the most abject and down-trodden people of Europe, Asia, 
and Africa. Having no foundation in the consent of the people who are 
made its slaves, it will be an unmixed evil in our system, pregnant with the 
worst consequences of tyranny, and worse than anarchy in its worst form. 

And am I to be called upon here to participate in exercising any such 
power ? I detest it. I will never participate in it. I will go to the people 
and I will ask them if they are willing to be instrumental in the exercise of 
despotic power over their fellow-citizens ; because, forsooth, their enterprise 
has borne them on to the region of the Rocky Mountains ? I will ask if 
these people have ceased to be Americans ; if they have become incapable of 
exercising the right of self-government, because they have encountered the 
hardships of the wilderness to become the founders of new states ; and if 
they have themselves so soon forgotten the first principles of liberty, the les- 
sons of the Revolution, and the lessons of the revolutionary fathers, that they 
are willing to wield this despotic power over their children. Sir, I know 
what the popular response will be. Sir, I know what it will be. The people 
of this country will be unanimous — ultimately unanimous. Their " sober 
second thought" will be everywhere; let the people rule; let them govern 
themselves in their own way vjhen in the possession of legislative power ; let this 
federal government, in wielding the power over what is necessary over the 
territories, conform it to the principles upon which the Constitution is 
founded. 

ME. HUNTER, OF VIRGINIA, 

after detailing the events attending the legislation in 1850, 
said : 

But the South was voted down, and the whole question was so settled 
that, practically, there is not one square inch of that territory which the South 
can ever settle or occupy ; and, in exchange for it, the South got, first, the 
declaration on the part of the leading Northern friends of that Compromise — a 
declaration which seems to have been sustained by the legislation of the coun- 
try — that it was unconstitutional to pass any law that should prohibit the in- 
troduction of slavery into the unoccupied territories of the United States ; and 
secondly, the admission of the principle that the true mode of organizing that 
unoccupied territory is to give the people of the territory power to legislate 
over all rightful subjects of legislation which are consistent with the Constitu- 
tion. That was all the South received in exchange for its just share of that 
vast territory ; and although I believe that it was the almost universal senti- 
ment of the South that they had been wronged in this adjustment, yet they 
acquiesced and submitted. 

It is then surprising that when we come to organize the territorial govern- 
ment of this country, where slavery is prohibited by preceding legislative re- 
striction, the South* should say, " Gentlemen, you said it was unconstitutional 
to pass a legislative prohibition. Here is one ; we ask you to remove it. You 



208 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the people the right, when they form a State constitution, to decide for 
themselves whether slavery shall exist or not; but in the mean time, while 
it is a territory, they say slavery ought to be excluded. This is like tying a 
man's hands and legs, and telling him to go where he pleases. 

FEOM THE SAME SPEECH OF ME. WELLES. 

One of these senators from Ohio (Mr.' Wade) went so far as to utter this 
sentiment : 

" Sir, in the days of the revolution Major Andre was hung by the neck 
until he was dead for accepting a proposition not more base than this, 
which is a gross betrayal of the rights of the whole North." 

What an Egyptian darkness must have pervaded the mind of that Sena- 
tor before he could have arrived at that conclusion ! "What sad ravages the 
foul spirit of fanaticism must have made upon his heart before he could have 
uttered that sentiment! The simple proposition to leave the people of 
Kansas and Nebraska free and untrammeled to decide on all their local in- 
stitutions for themselves is, in his judgment, a more dishonorable proposi- 
tion than that for which Major Andre was hung ! I pray that God may en- 
lighten the benighted mind of that senator and soften his heart, and that ere 
long he will be restored to a proper degree of judgment and reason — I had 
almost said decency. 

ME. TOUCEY, OF CONNECTICUT. 

Sir, I find no difficulty with regard to the territorial governments which 
we have had. They are assented to by the people who live under them, 
are adopted by the people, and put in operation by the people ; and when 
the assent of the people and the assent of Congress both combine to uphold 
a government de facto, that government is in the possession of power, and 
it would be very difficult to question its practical validity. And as the 
people participate in territorial legislation, and, in fact, the laws originate 
with them, are proposed and adopted by them, these laws have not only the 
presumed assent of the people, but then express assent also ; and having the 
implied sanction of Congress, if they are consistent with the Constitution, 
there seems to be no element wanting to render them effective to aU intents 
and purposes whatsoever. But I mean to say that in the exercise of the 
power over the territories, acquired by the treaty -making power, you are 
bound to exercise that power in conformity with the principles of the Consti- 
tution ; and if you do otherwise, although the law may not reach it, and 
courts of justice may not reach it, yet you are acting unconstitutionally ; and 
if we knowingly and willingly violate the principles of government in exer- 
cising the necessary power that arises from the acquisition of territory, we vio- 
late the obligation that is upon us to support the Constitution. When, there- 
fore, this principle of non-interference applies to all the states — applies to 
every state that has come or will come into the Union — when in a very short 
period sovereign states will occupy every foot of territory within the limits of 
the United States, and this principle will become universal, are we justified, 
are we acting in the true spirit of the Constitution, are we not violating the 
obligations upon us, when we trample this principle under foot, and under- 
take to control the domestic relations of a people who are, with our consent, 
in the possession of legislative power, and admitted by us to be capable of 
exercising it ? 

* * -x * 

Why should we undertake in this government here to exercise this power 
of dictating to them ? 



THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA ACT. 209 

"What right have we, in these Atlantic States, over the people of the re- 
mote territories to dictate law to them ? They are American citizens. They 
have gone into these territories with the full rights of American citizens. 
Why should we seek to exercise this arbitrary power over them? "Why 
should we assume on our part to govern them at our will and pleasure ? It 
would be as arbitrary and despotic power as exists anywhere in the civilized 
or uncivilized world. It will be the same arbitrary power wliich the parlia- 
ment of Great Britain undertook to exercise over the American colonies when 
they resisted and revolted. It will be the despotism practiced by the worst 
governments over the most abject and down-trodden people of Europe, Asia, 
and Africa. Having no foundation in the consent of the people who are 
made its slaves, it will be an unmixed evil in our system, pregnant with the 
worst consequences of tyranny, and worse than anarchy in its worst form. 

And am I to be called upon here to participate in exercising any such 
power ? I detest it. I will never participate in it. I will go to the people 
and I will ask them if they are willing to be instrumental in the exercise of 
despotic power over their fellow- citizens ; because, forsooth, their enterprise 
has borne them on to the region of the Rocky Mountains ? I will ask if 
these people have ceased to be Americans ; if they have become incapable of 
exercising the right of self-government, because they have encountered the 
hardships of the wilderness to become the founders of new states ; and if 
they have themselves so soon forgotten the first principles of liberty, the les- 
sons of the Revolution, and the lessons of the revolutionary fathers, that they 
are willing to wield this despotic power over their children. Sir, I know 
what the popular response will be. Sir, I know what it will be. The people 
of this country will be unanimous — ultimately unanimous. Their "sober 
second thought" will be everywhere; let the people rule; let them govern 
themselves in their own toay when in the possession of legislative power ; let this 
federal government, in wielding the power over what is necessary over the 
territories, conform it to the principles upon which the Constitution is 
founded. 

ME. HTJNTEE, OE VIEGINIA, 

after detailing the events attending the legislation in 1850, 
said : 

But the South was voted down, and the whole question was so settled 
that, practically, there is not one square inch of that territory which the South 
can ever settle or occupy ; and, in exchange for it, the South got, first, the 
declaration on the part of the leading Northern friends of that Compromise — a 
declaration which seems to have been sustained by the legislation of the coun- 
try — that it was unconstitutional to pass any law that should prohibit the in- 
troduction of slavery into the unoccupied territories of the United States ; and 
secondly, the admission of the principle that the true mode of organizing that 
unoccupied territory is to give the people of the territory power to legislate 
over all rightful subjects of legislation which are consistent with the Constitu- 
tion. That was all the South received in exchange for its just share of that 
vast territory ; and although I believe that it was the almost universal senti- 
ment of the South that they had been wronged in this adjustment, yet they 
acquiesced and submitted. 

It is then surprising that when we come to organize the territorial govern- 
ment of this country, where slavery is prohibited by preceding legislative re- 
striction, the South should say, " Gentlemen, you said it was unconstitutional 
to pass a legislative prohibition. Here is one ; we ask you to remove it. You 



210 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

said that the true way to constitute a territorial government was to give to 
the people of that territory power to legislate upon all rightful subjects of 
legislation consistently with the Constitution. "We ask you to give that power 
to the people in these territories in the precise words contained in the bill for 
the territorial organization of Utah." "Was it not then an inevitable conse- 
quence of the course of events I have depicted that the South should make 
this request ? Is it not a matter of justice, is it not a matter of constitutional 
right, that the North should accord it ? 

Subsequently, Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, stated that senators 
from the South had denied that under the language of the 
bill the Legislature of the Territory would have the same au- 
thority over slavery as over any other subject — that under the 
words of the bill the Legislature was restrained in its action 
upon the subject of slavery. He referred to Mr. Hunter as 
one of those who had thus questioned the extent and oper- 
ation of the words of the bill. Mr. Hunter thus clearly and 
explicitly responded : 

Mr. Hunter-: If the senator will allow me, I will state that I only desired 
it because I thought the Constitution prohibits them from so legislating. I 
believe the bill, as it now stands, gives the people of the territories all the 
power that any bill could give them, unless there is some power beyond the 
Constitution which they may exercise. That was the opinion which I ex- 
pressed — that they would be restricted by the Constitution, and I presume 
it will restrict them whether we mention it or not. 



ME. CASS, OF MICHIGAN. 

" The power of the people to legislate for themselves upon 
all these questions of domestic policy is the inevitable result 
of the preceding principles and of American institutions. If 
Congress have no jurisdiction over the subject, the people 
must have it, or the most important concerns of social and of 
civil life would be left without security or protection. No one 
has ever questioned their just claim to regulate, by their im- 
mediate representatives, the various questions connected with 
their civil and social relations, except this relation of master 
and servant, and this exception cannot stand the test of any 
reasonable scrutiny. I am aware of the objections which have 
been urged against the existence of this right of self-govern- 
ment founded on the connection of the people of the terri- 
tories with the government of the United States, and I have 
been amazed at the subtle arguments, politico-metaphysical 
indeed, which have been presented against the enjoyment of 
one of the most sacred rights which God has given to man. 






THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 211 

The inseparable union between representation and the regula- 
tion of the domestic affairs of a community, including taxa- 
tion, is one of the cardinal principles of American political 
faith laid down in our state papers, taught in our schools, and 
triumphantly asserted and defended on the battle-field — a 
principle which the Continental Congress, in 1774, declared in 
these words: 

" The English, colonists are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legis- 
lation in their several provincial Legislatures, where their right of representa- 
can alone be preserved in all cases of taxation and internal policy, etc. And 
strange is it, in the vacillation of human opinions, that from defenders we are 
urged to become offenders, and, with the practice, to adopt the principle of 
Lord North in this crusade against human rights. For there is scarcely an 
argument which can be urged against this claim of local legislation which the 
British Ministry did not urge against the demands of our fathers to be allowed 
to legislate on themselves. We have been told with due gravity, and, I have 
no doubt, with due sincerity, that the United States are the 'Sovereign;' and 
we have been asked, ' and how can sovereignty, the ultimate and supreme 
power of the state, be divided?' Sovereignty indeed! and who can find the 
word in the Constitution, or who can deduce any power from its use ? It is 
a process of constructive authority which cannot be too severely reprobated, 
at war, as it is, with the fundamental basis of the confederation. Once es- 
tablish its operation as the foundation of Congressional action, and other and 
nearer rights than those of distant, feeble communities, would soon be pros- 
trated before it." , 

******** 

" But, sir, whether the government of the United States is sovereign or 
subordinate, supreme or inferior, confederated or consolidated — and consolida- 
ted it will become, if some of these doctrines prevail — are questions not worth 
a moment's consideration in any inquiry into its legitimate power. Neither 
these nor any other attributes can confer upon it the least jurisdiction. To find 
what that is, we must go to the Constitution — to the law and the testimony. 
And all these useless, and some of them unintelhgible abstractions, were 
urged as reasons why the internal affairs of American citizens, caUed freemen, 
should be controlled by a distant legislature, not one member of which enti- 
tled to vote is elected by, or is responsible to them. 

" His Majesty in Parliament, said the Government of George III., has the 
right, by statute, to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever. It took Lord 
North and his master George III. seven years to learn the falsehood of this 
assumption, and the lesson cost them an empire. "While history is the record 
of human actions, it is the reiteration of human motives and pretensions. 
And now before all the men of the generation which successfully resisted this 
edict of tyranny have passed away, we are called upon practically to declare 
that our majesty, this government in Congress, has the right by statute to 
bind the territories in all cases whatsoever, or, according to the new version, 
to sell the people into slavery. This is good doctrine over the water at Ber- 
lin, and Vienna., and at Petersburgh, but I hope not upon the Wabash, though 
we are told that God has spared a precious life upon its fertile banks in order 
to announce and promulgate it. The ways of Providence are often dark to us 
blind mortals, but seldom darker than in this case, whether we consider the 
messenger or the message, the prophet or the prophecy. He without whose 
knowledge no sparrow falls to the ground, sometimes selects strange instru- 
ments, according to our comprehension, to accomplish his wise designs. It 



212 LIFE OF STEPIIEN A. DOUGLAS. 

was so in the days of Balaam, and if a similar wonder has just occurred in oui 
days and in our midst, nothing is left for us but to bow and believe. But 
whatever may be the nature of this mission, the doctrine itself would sound 
better within sight of the tomb of Achilles than within sight of the tomb of 
"Washington. But even under the shadow of Islamism, and within the hear- 
ing of the muezzin who calls the faithful to prayer, it would not be considered 
quite orthodox in this day of Turkish reform. 

"And why should not the people of the territories legislate for themselves ? 
The senator from New York intimates that they do not know enough, and 
can not safely be trusted with this incident of self-government — the power to 
regulate the condition of master and servant — though he is willing to trust 
them with all the powers of life and death which depend upon the political 
action of a country — with complete authority over whites, but a limited one 
over blacks. This plea of the incompetency of the people to manage their 
own concerns is the old plea of tyranny all the world over, in the contest be- 
tween power and freedom ; and it never was better rebuked than by the 
author of the Declaration of Independance, when he said ' if the peopel are 
not fit to govern themselves, have they found angels, in the shape of men, to 
govern them?' 

" "Well, sir, the senator from New York has made the discovery, which 
escaped the penetration of this Patriarch of the Democratic faith, and has 
found angels in the shape of Congressmen to govern the territories. I do not 
believe in this new phase of despotism — making slaves of white communities." 

At a later stage of the bill, while the amendment proposed 
by Mr. Clayton, to restrict the right of suffrage to citizens, 
was under consideration, 

Mr. Atchison, of Missouri, said : 

"Yery well. We will have no difference in relation to that matter; but 
the objection I have is, that foreigners, men who are not citizens, men who 
may never become citizens, will mould and form the institutions in these terri- 
tories, under the provision of the bill as it stands, unless we concur in the 
amendment. 

" The first legislature may decide the question of slavery forever in these terri- 
tories, and decide as to the right of the people of one-half of the States of this 
Union to go there or not. It is because they have the right of suffrage, and 
the right to hold office in these territories, when their institutions are first 
formed and first moulded, that constitutes my chief and principle objection. 
If the senator would alter and amend his proposition so that, in the year 1857 
or 1858, persons who have declared their intention to become citizens may 
exercise the right of suffrage and hold office, I will waive my objection." 

THE BADGER AMENDMENT. 

The Chase amendment having been rejected, Mr. Badger 
then submitted his amendment, which now forms part of the 
14th section of the bill, as follows : 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or 
put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act 
of the 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or 
abolishing slavery." 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA. ACT. 213 

This was agreed to, yeas 35, nays 6 — five senators from 
the South and Dodge, of Wisconsin, voting against it. 

Mr. Douglas then moved to strike out the provision giving 
the governor the power of absolute veto, and inserting a 
clause conferring a limited one ; also to strike out the clause 
declaring that the acts of the Territorial Legislature should 
be submitted to Congress, and if disapproved should be null 
and void. These amendments, designed to give greater free- 
dom to the Legislatures of the Territories, were adopted with- 
out a division. 

THE CLAYTON AMENDMENT. 

The bill as it stood admitted to the right of voting all 
citizens 

" And those who shall have declared, on oath, their intentions to become 
such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United 
States and the provisions of this act." 

Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, moved to strike out these words, 
so as to deprive all persons not fully naturalized of the privi- 
lege of voting. -A brief debate ensued, and the amendment 
was agreed to, yeas 23, nays 21 — Mr. Douglas and all the 
northern friends of the bill, except one, voting in the nega- 
tive. 

After making some further amendments and rejecting seve- 
ral proposed by Mr. Chase, the question was taken on agree- 
ing with the substitute, and agreed to ; the bill was then re- 
ported to the Senate, and all the amendments made in 
Committee of the Whole were concurred in without a count, 
except that known as the Clayton amendment ; upon that, 
after debate, the question was taken by yeas and nays, and 
again decided in the affirmative, yeas 22, nays 20. The bill 
was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, yeas 
29, nays 12. 

On the next day, March 3d, the question pending was, 
Shall this bill pass ? The bill was taken up at an early hour. 
Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, addressed the Senate, followed by 
Dawson, of Georgia, ISTorris, of New Hampshire, Wade, of 
Ohio, Mr Toucey, Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Weller, and incident- 
ally by others, and at nearly midnight Mr. Douglas obtained 
the floor. After some further time in discussing as to further 



214 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

speaking after he closed, he proceeded in a speech, which was 
delivered even at that hour to crowded galleries, and to a 
Senate fully aroused and gratified by the force of his argu- 
ment, the impetuosity of his invective, and the clearness and 
ability with which he defended himself and the great mea- 
sure. This speech, under all the circumstances, was one of 
the most remarkable ever delivered. During the preceding 
six weeks his name had been coupled with every term of re- 
proach that malignity could invent. He had been hung and 
burnt in effigy in several places in the New England and 
other states. Every description of obloquy had been heaped 
upon him. He had been selected as the victim to be sacri- 
ficed by popular frenzy. Instead of being dismayed or cast 
down by the storm which had been so pitilessly directed 
against him, he on that memorable night seemed to have in- 
creased in all those unyielding persevering qualities which 
have been so severely tested, and which have never failed to 
carry him through all the momentous difficulties he has had to 
encounter. The speech will be found in extenso at the clos6 
of this chapter. 

Mr. Houston followed, and about 5 o'clock, a. m., the Sen 
ate proceeded to vote, and the bill passed. 

Teas — Adams, Miss. ; Atchison, Mo. ; Badger, N. C. ; Bayard, Del. ; Ben 
jamin, La.; Brodhead, Pa. : Brown, Miss. ; Butler, S. C. ; Cass, Mich. ; Clay, 
Ala. ; Dawson, Geo. ; Dixon, Ky. ; Dodge, Iowa ; Douglas, 111. ; Evans, S. C. ; 
Fitzpatrick, Ala.; Geyer, Mo.; Gwin, Cal. ; Hunter, Va. ; Johnson, Ark. ; 
Jones, Iowa ; Jones, Tenn. ; Mason, Va. ; Morton, Fla, ; Norris, N". H. ; 
Pettit, Ind. ; Pratt, Md. ; Busk, Tex. ; Sebastian, Ark. ; Shields, 111. ; Sli- 
dell, La. ; Stuart, Mich. ; Thompson, Ky. ; Thomson, N. J. ; Toucey, Conn. ; 
Weller, Cal.; Williams, K H.— Total, 37. 

Nays— Bell, Tenn.; Chase, Ohio; Dodge, Wis,; Fessenden, Me.; Fish, 
K T. ; Foot, Vt. ; Hamlin, Me. ; Houston, Tex. ; James, R. I. ; Seward, 
N. Y. ; Smith, Conn. ; Sumner, Mass. ; Wade, Ohio ; Walker, Wis. — 
Total, 14. 



THE NEBRASKA BILL IN THE HOUSE. 

On the 7th of March the Senate bill was received in the 
House of Representatives. 

On the 31st of January preceding, Mr. Richardson, of Ill- 
inois, had reported " a bill to organize the Territories of Neb- 
raska and Kansas" — being similar in all respects to the mea- 
sure then pending before the Senate, as reported by Mr. 






THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 215 

Douglas, and it was referred to the Committee of the Whole 
on the State of the Union. 

Under the rules of the house, members were permitted to 
discuss in Committee of the Whole, regardless of the immedi- 
ate subject under consideration, almost any topic that might 
suit their taste or their interests. Hence, the whole merits of 
the Kansas and Nebraska bill — the house as well as the Sen- 
ate bill — were debated for a long time in Committee of the 
Whole, without either bill being strictly before the house. 

Qn the 21st of March the Senate bill, by a vote of yeas 110 
to nays 95, was sent to the Committee of the Whole ; the 
motion, which was considered by the friends of the bill as hos- 
tile to its success, was made by Mr. Cutting, of New York, 
and out of it subsequently grew a controversy between that 
gentleman and Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, that for a 
time gave indications of a personal conflict. 

Thus matters stood until the 8th of May, when Mr. Richard- 
son moved that the house resolve itself into Committee of the 
Whole, avowing his purpose, when in committee, to move to 
lay aside all other bills on the calendar, and take up the 
house Nebraska Bill. After considerable maneuvering the 
house was brought to a vote upon the motion, which was 
agreed to — yeas 109, nays 88. The Speaker having vacated 
the chair, Mr. Olds (of Ohio) was called to preside over the 
Committee of the Whole. Mr. Richardson then moved to 
lay aside the first bill on the calendar, and the motion was 
agreed to — ayes 103, nays 82. He then moved to lay aside 
the next bill, and repeated the motion until the Nebraska Bill 
was reached. That bill being taken up he moved to amend it 
by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting a 
substitute in the exact words of the bill passed by the Senate, 
restoring the words which had been stricken out of that bill 
on motion of Mr. Clayton. 

On Thursday, May 11th, the house met at 12 o'clock, m. 
Mr. Richardson submitted the usual motion for closing debate 
in committee upon the Nebraska Bill, whereupon the oppo- 
nents of the bill resorted to the routine of motions for adjourn- 
ment, call of the house, lay upon the table, etc., etc. The 
struggle was a protracted one, continuing until a few minutes 
before 12 o'clock on Friday (12th) night, when, on motion of 



216 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Mr. Richardson, the house adjourned, after a continuous ses- 
sion of thirty-six hours. On Saturday, 13th, the business was 
renewed, but after a few hours a motion to adjourn prevailed. 
On Monday, 15th, the house resumed the consideration of 
the motion ; but as by the rules any motion to suspend the 
rules could take priority of the pending proposition, Mr. 
Richardson, to avoid having his motion crowded out by prop- 
ositions of that character, modified his motion, or, in fact, 
moved to suspend the rules, to enable him to offer the follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved, That debate on House Bill No. 236, to organize the territories of 
Nebraska and Kansas, shall terminate at 12 o'clock, Saturday, 20th inst., and 
that the consideration of the special order on bill No. 295, for the Pacific 
Railroad, be postponed until the 24th inst. 

The motion to suspend the rules required a vote of two- 
thirds; and the house, by a vote of yeas 137, nays 6G, sus- 
pended the rules, and the resolution was introduced. Promi- 
nent among those of the "distinguished" members of the 
present Republican party who, in this life-struggle for the 
Nebraska Bill, voted with its friends and placed it within the 
control of a mere majority, were the Hon. 1ST. P. Banks, of 
Massachusetts, John Went worth, of Illinois, and James H. 
Lane, of Kansas. Without the votes of these "eminent" 
gentlemen the Kansas-Nebraska Bill would in all probability 
have never got out of the Committee of the Whole. 

The question then recurred on the adoption of the resolu- 
tion, and resort was again had to parliamentary tactics ; the 
struggle was protracted until six o'clock next morning, when 
the resolution was adopted. * 

The next day, 16th, the bill was considered in committee, 
and each day until Saturday. At noon on that day — the 
house having met at 9, a. m. — Mr. Richardson closed the 
general debate. The bill was still open to amendments, upon 
which five-minute speeches were permitted. On Monday, 
May 22d, came the last contest in the house upon the meas- 
ure. The attendance was large — absentees had all paired off. 
The galleries were crowded, the lobbies filled, and the floor 
thronged with senators and others privileged upon the floor. 
The chaplain, the Rev. W. H. Milburn, in his prayer at the 
opening of the house thus referred to the expected scenes: 






THE KANSAS-NEBKASKA ACT. 217 

" Oh Thou, the high and mighty Ruler of the Universe, devoutly we im- 
plore thy blessing to rest upon this house, again about to enter upon one of 
the most arduous and memorable struggles the country has ever known. 
Help every member to keep cool, calm, and self-possessed, remembering that 
the angry man gives his adversary the advantage, and the enraged party com- 
promises its truest interests. Assist every man to co-operate with the 
Speaker and Chairman in preserving order, recollecting that the eyes of the 
country are fixed upon this house, and that the deep interests of the coun- 
try are involved in the deliberations of this Congress. May every man dare 
to do his duty, and abide the issues of his conscious convictions, we pray, 
through Jesus Christ." 

The motion to go into committee was resisted but prevailed 
— yeas 105, nays 70. Under the rule allowing speeches upon 
'pro forma amendment, the opponents of the bill could keep 
it in comnrittee and thus delay final action, at their pleasure. 
But this was brought to a sudden and most unexpected ter- 
mination. Mr. Stephens moved to amend the bill by striking 
out the enacting clause. The effect of this motion, which had 
precedence of any other motion to amend, if adopted, was 
equivalent to a rejection of the bill ; and made it imperative 
that the bill should be reported to the house, where a vote 
could be had confirming or setting aside the action in commit- 
tee. The motion put an end to the expectations of those who 
looked forward to a protracted campaign in parliamentary 
warfare. Mr. Chandler, at present representing the United 
States at one of the European courts, in behalf of the oppon- 
ents of the measure, denounced the movement as " wicked," 
and indulged in other warm language of reprobation. When 
the committee was dividing a member from New York called 
upon the opposition to " oppose tyrrany by revolution." Mr. 
Stephens' motion was agreed to, and the committee rose and 
reported its action to the house. The bill was now before the 
house, and so far its friends had made great progress ; but it 
was Monday, and motions to suspend the rules were by the 
rules in order as privileged questions. Mr. Richardson moved 
the p-evious question with a view to bring the house to a 
vote upon the bill and pending amendments. Motions to ad- 
journ and to adjourn till Wednesday were made repeatedly 
and rejected. Motions to suspend the rules were interposed. 
Finally, the house was brought to a vote upon concurring 
with the committee in striking out the enacting clause of the 
bill, and the House refused to concur— yeas 97, nays 117. 

Mr. Richardson then moved to amend the bill by striking 

K 



218 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

out all after the enacting clause, .and inserting the Senate bill 
without the Clayton amendment. This was agreed to — yeas 
115, nays 96. A motion to lay on the table was rejected — 
yeas 100, nays 114. The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
for a third reading — yeas 112, nays 99, and the bill was passed 
— yeas 113, nays 100. The title was then agreed to at half- 
past eleven o'clock, p. m., and the house, having disposed of 
the bill, adjourned. 

On the next day the bill was delivered to the Senate. It 
was read the first time, but Mr. Sumner objecting the second 
reading did not take place ; on the 24th it was read the 
second time and considered. Mr. Pearce renewed the Clay- 
ton amendment. 

The bill was debated until a late hour on the 24th, and on 
the 25th was resumed. A warm and at one time very angry 
discussion took place between Mr. Bell and the other southern 
Whigs. Mr. Bell had voted to insert in the bill, when it was 
before the Senate in February, the clause repealing the Mis- 
souri restriction ; and yet had voted against the bill because 
of that repeal. 

The Clayton amendment, as renewed by Mr. Pearce, was 
rejected — yeas 7, nays 41. 

At one o'clock, on the morning of the 26th of May, Mr. 
Douglas closed the debate, and the bill, by a vote of — yeas 35, 
nays 13, was ordered to a third reading. It was then read a 
third time and passed without a division. 

And thus ended the struggle in Congress upon that much 
abused, but the wisest, safest, and most just measure ever 
adopted by Congress for the vexed question of slavery in the 
territories. 

The following is Mr. Douglas' memorable speech of 
March 3d: 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, before I proceed to the general argument upon 
the most important branch of this question, I must say a few words in reply 
to the senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell], who has spoken upon the bill to- 
day. He approves of the principles of the bill ; he thinks they have great 
merit ; but he does not see his way entirely clear to vote for the bill, because 
of the objections which he has stated, most of which relate to the Indians. 

Upon that point I desire to say that it has never been the custom in ter- 
ritorial bills to make regulations concerning the Indians within the limits of 
the proposed territories. All matters relating to them it has been thought 
wise to leave to subsequent legislation, to be brought forward by the Com- 
mittee on Indian Affairs. I did venture originally in this bill to put in one 
or two provisions upon that subject ; but, at the suggestion of many seua- 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 219 

tors on both sides of the chamber, they were stricken out in order to allow 
the appropriate committee of the Senate to take charge of that subject. I 
think, therefore, since we have stricken from the bill all those provisions 
which pertain to the Indians, and reserved the whole subject for the consid- 
eration and action of the appropriate committee, we have obviated every 
possible objection which could reasonably be urged upon that score. We 
have every reason to hope and trust that the Committee on Indian Affairs 
will propose such measures as will do entire justice to the Indians, without 
contravening the objects of Congress in organizing these territories. 

But, sir, allusion has been made to certain Indian treaties, and it has been 
intimated, if not charged in direct terms, that we were violating the stipu- 
lations of those treaties in respect to the rights and lands of the Indians. 
The senator from Texas [Mr. Houston] made a very long and interesting 
speech on that subject ; but it so happened that most of the treaties to 
which he referred were with Indians not included within the limits of this 
bill. We have been informed, in the course of the debate to-day, by the 
chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs [Mr. Sebastian], that there ia 
but one treaty in existence relating to lands or Indians within the limits of 
either of the proposed territories, and that is the treaty with the Ottawa 
Indians, about two hundred persons in number, owning about thirty-four 
thousand acres of land. Thus it appears that the whole argument of in- 
justice to the red man, which in the course of this debate has called forth so 
much sympathy and indignation, is confined to two hundred Indians, own- 
ing less than two townships of land. Now, sir, is it possible that a coun- 
try, said to be five hundred thousand square miles in extent, and largo 
enough to make twelve such states as Ohio, is to be consigned to perpetual 
barbarism merely on account of that small number of Indians, when the 
bill itself expressly provides that those Indians and their lands are not to be 
included within the limits of the proposed territories, nor to be subject to 
their laws or jurisdiction ? I would not allow this measure to invade the 
rights of even one Indian, and hence I inserted in the first section of the 
bill that none of the tribes with whom we have treaty stipulations should be 
embraced within either of the territories, unless such Indians shall volun- 
tarily consent to be included therein by treaties hereafter to be made. If 
any senator can furnish me with language more explicit, or which would 
prove more effectual in securing the rights of the Indians, I will cheerfully 
adopt it 

Well, sir, the senator from Tennessee, in a very kind spirit, here raises the 
objection for me to answer, that this bill includes Indians within the limits 
of these territories with whom we have no treaties ; and he desires to know 
what we are to do with them. I will say to him, that this is not a matter 
of inquiry which necessarily or properly arises upon the passage of this bill ; 
that is not a proper inquiry to come before the Committee on Territories. 
You have in all your territorial bills included Indians within the boundaries 
of the territories. , When you erected the Territory of Minnesota, you had 
not extinguished the Indian title to one foot of land in that territory west 
of the Mississippi river, and to the major part of that territory the Indian 
title remains unextinguished to this day. In addition to those wild tribes, 
you removed Indians from Wisconsin and located them within Minnesota 
since the territory was organized. It will be a question for the considera- 
tion of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and for the action of Congress, 
when, in settlement and civilization, it shall become necessary to change the 
present policy in respect to the Indians. When you erected the territorial 
government of Oregon, a few years ago, you embraced within it all the In- 
dians living in the territory without their consent, and without any such 
reservations in then behalf as are contained in this bill. You had not at 



220 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

that time made a treaty with those Indians, nor extinguished their title to 
an acre of land in that territory, nor indeed have you done so to this day. 
So it is in the organization of Washington Territory. You ran the lines 
around the country which you thought ought to be within the limits of the 
territory, and you embraced all the Indians within those lines ; but you 
made no provision in respect to their rights or lands ; you left that matter to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs, to the Indian laws, and to the proper de- 
partment, to be arranged afterwards as the public interests might require. 
The same is true in reference to Utah and New Mexico. 

In fact, the policy provided for in this bill, in respect to the Indians, is 
that which is now in force in every one of the territories. Therefore, any 
senator who objects to this bill on that score should have objected to and 
voted against every territorial bill which you have now in existence. Yet 
my friend from Texas has taken occasion to remind the Senate several times 
that it was a matter of pride — and it ought to be a matter of patriotic pride 
with him — that he voted for every measure of the Compromise of 1850, in- 
cluding the Utah and New Mexico territorial bill, embracing all the Indians 
within then limits. My friend from Tennessee, too, has been very liberal in 
voting for most of the territorial bills; and I therefore trust that the same 
patriotic and worthy motives which induced him to vote for the territorial 
acts of 1850 will enable him to give his support to the present bill, especially 
as he approves of the great principle of popular sovereignty upon which it 
rests. 

The senator from Tennessee remarked further, that the proposed limits of 
these two territories were too extensive, that they were large enough to be 
erected into eight different states ; and why, he asked, the necessity of in- 
cluding such a vast amount of country within the limits of these two terri- 
tories '/ I must remind the senator that it has always been the practice to 
include a large extent of country within one territory, and then to subdivide 
it from time to time as the public interest might require. Such was the case 
with the the old Northwest Territory. It was all originally included within 
one territorial government. Afterwards Ohio was cut off ; and then Indi- 
ana, Michigan, Illinois, and "Wisconsin were successively erected into separate 
territorial governments, and subsequently admitted into the Union as states. 

At one period, it will be remembered, the Territory of Wisconsin included 
the country embraced within the limits of the States of Wisconsin and 
Iowa, and a part of the State of Michigan, and the Territory of Minnesota. 
There is country enough within the Territory of Minnesota to make two or 
three States of the size of New York. Washington Territory embraces 
about the same area. Oregon is large enough to make three or four States 
as extensive as Pennsylvania, Utah two or three, and New Mexico four or 
rive of like dimensions. Indeed, the whole country embraced within the 
proposed Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, together with the States of 
Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, and the larger part of Minnesota, and the 
whole of the Indian country west of Arkansas, once constituted a territorial 
government, under the name of the Missouri Territory. In view of thi3 
course of legislation upon the subject of territorial organization, commen- 
cing before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and coming 
down to the last session of Congress, it surely can not be said that there is 
any thing unusual or extraordinary in the size of the proposed territory, 
which should compel a senator to vote against the bill, while he approves of 
the principle involved in the measure. 

It has also been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these terri- 
torial organizations ; and I have been called upon to point out any public 
and national considerations which require action at this time. Senators 
seem to forget that our immense and valuable possessions on the Pacific are 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 221 

separated from the states and organized territories, on this side of the Rocky 
Mountains, by a vast wilderness, filled by hostile savages ; that nearly a 
hundred thousand emigrants pass through this barbarous wilderness every 
year, on their way to California and Oregon; that these emigrants are 
American citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to the protection 
of law and government ; and that they are left to make their way, as best 
they may, without the protection or aid of law or government. 

The United States mails for New Mexico and Utah, and all official com- 
munications between this government and the authorities of those territo- 
ries, are required to be carried over these wild plains, and through the 
gorges of the mountains, where you have made no provision for roads 
bridges, or ferries, to facilitate travel, or forts or other means of safety to 
protect life. As often as I have brought forward and urged the adoption oi 
measures to remedy these evils, and afford security against the dangers to 
which our people are constantly exposed, they have been promptly voted 
down as not being of sufficient importance to command the favorable consid- 
eration of Congress. Now, when I propose to organize the territories, and 
allow the people to do for themselves what you have so often refused to 
do for them, I am told that there are not white inhabitants enough perma- 
nently settled in the country to require and sustain a government. True 
there is not a very large population there, for the very good reason that your 
Indian code and intercourse laws exclude the settlers, and forbid their re- 
maining there to cultivate the soil. You refuse to throw the country open 
to settlers, and then object to the organization of the territories upon the 
ground that there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants. 

The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) has made a long argument to 
prove that there are no inhabitants in the proposed territories, because 
nearly all of those who have gone and settled there have done so in viola- 
tion of certain old acts of Congress which forbid the people to take possession 
of and settle upon the public lands until after they should be surveyed and 
brought into market 

I do not propose to discuss the question whether these settlers are techni- 
cally legal inhabitants or not. It is enough for me that they are a part of our 
own people ; that they are settled on the public domain ; that the public in- 
terests would be promoted by throwing that public domain open to settle- 
ment ; and that there is no good reason why the protection of law and the 
blessings of government should not be extended to them. I must be per- 
mitted to remind the senator that the same objection existed in its full force 
to Minnesota, to Oregon and to Washington, when each of those territories 
were organized ; and that I have no recollection that he deemed it his duty 
to call the attention of Congress to the objection, or considered it of sufficient 
importance to justify him in recording his own vote against the organization 
of either of those territories. 

Mr. President, I do not feel called upon to make any reply to the argu- 
ment which the senator from Connecticut has urged against the passage of 
this bill upon the scorce of expense in sustaining these territorial govern- 
ments, for the reason that, if the public interests require the enactment of 
the law, it follows as a natural consequence that all the expenses necessary 
to cany it into effect are wise and proper. 

I will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle involved in 
the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of those extraneous mat- 
ters which have been brought into this discussion with the view of produc- 
ing another anti-slavery agitation. We have been told by nearly every 
senator who has spoken in opposition to this bill, that at the time of its in- 
troduction the people were in a state of profound quiet and repose ; that the 
anti-slavery agitation had entirely ceased ; and that the whole country was 



222 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

acquiescing cheerfully and cordially in tfie Compromise measures of 1850 as 
a final adjustment of this vexed question. 

Sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators, who contested every inch of 
ground in opposition to those measures when they were under discussion, 
who predicted all manner of evils and calamities from their adoption, and 
who raised the cry of repeal, and even resistance, to their execution, after 
they had become the laws of the land — I say it is really refreshing to hear 
these same senators now bear their united testimony to the wisdom of those 
measures, and to the patriotic motives which induced us to pass them in de- 
fiance of their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial effects in restor- 
ing peace, harmony, and fraternity to a distracted country. These are pre- 
cious confessions from the lips of those who stand pledged never to assent to 
the propriety of those measures, and to make war upon them so long as they 
3hall remain upon the statute-book. I well understand that these confessions 
are now made, not with the view of yielding their assent to the propriety of 
carrying those enactments into faithful execution, but for the purpose of 
having a pretext for charging upon me, as the author of this bill, the respon- 
sibility of an agitation which they are trying to produce. They say that I, 
and not they, have revived the agitation. What have I done to render 
me obnoxious to this charge ? They say I wrote and introduced this Neb- 
raska Bill. That is true ; but I was not a volunteer in the transaction. The 
Senate, by a unanimous vote, appointed me chairman of the territorial com- 
mittee, and associated five intelligent and patriotic senators with me, and 
thus made it our duty to take charge of all territorial business. In like 
manner, and with the concurrence of these complaining senators, the Senate 
referred to us a distinct proposition to organize this Nebraska Territory, and 
required us to report specifically apon the question. I repeat, then, we were 
not volunteers in this business. The duty was imposed upon us by the 
Senate. We were not unmindful of the delicacy and responsibility of the 
position. We were aware that from 1820 to 1850 the abolition doctrine of 
congressional interference with slavery in the territories and new states had 
so far prevailed as to keep up an incessant slavery agitation in Congress and 
throughout the country, whenever any new territory was to be acquired or 
organized. We were also aware that, in 1850, the right of the people to de- 
cide this question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution, was sub- 
stituted for the doctrine of congressional intervention. The first question, 
therefore, which the committee were called upon to decide, and indeed the 
only question of any material importance, in framing this bill, was this : 
Shall we adhere to and carry out the principles recognized by the Compro- 
mise measures of 1850, or shall we go back to the old exploded doctrine of 
congressional interference, as established in 1820 in a large portion of the 
country, and which it was the object of the Wilmont Proviso to give a uni- 
versal application, not only to all the territory which we then possessed, but 
all which we might hereafter acquire ? There were no other alternatives. . 
We were compelled to frame the bill upon the one or the other of these two \ 
principles. The doctrine of 1820 or the doctrine of 1850 must prevail. In 
the discharge of the duty imposed upon us by the Senate, the committee 
could not hesitate upon this point, whether we consulted our individual 
opinions and principles or those which were known to be entertained and 
boldly avowed by a large majority of the Senate. The two great political 
parties of the country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to 
the Compromise measures of 1850, "in principle and substance." A large 
majority of the Senate, indeed every member of the body, I believe, except 
the two avowed Abolitionists (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), profess to belong 
to the one or the other of these parties, and hence was supposed to be under 
a high moral obligation to carry out the " principle and substance" of those 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 223 

measures in all the new territorial organizations. The report of the com- 
mittee was in accordance with this obligation. I am arraigned, therefore, 
for having endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the Senate 
truly ; for having performed my duty in conformity with the parliamentary 
law ; for having been faithful to the trust reposed in me by the Senate. Let 
the vote this night determine whether I have thus faithfully represented your 
opinions. When a majority of the Senate shall have passed the bill ; when 
a majority of the states shall have endorsed it through their representatives 
upon this floor ; when a majority of the South and a majority of the North 
shall have sanctioned it ; when a majority of the "Whig party and a majority 
of the Democratic party shall have voted for it ; when each of these propo- 
sitions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final passage of 
the bill, I shall be willing to submit the question to the country, whether, 
as the organ of the committee, I performed my duty in the report and bill 
which have called down upon my head so much denunciation and abuse. 

Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had much to say about 
the mutations and modifications which this bill has undergone since it was 
first introduced by myself, and about the alleged departure of the bill, in its 
present form, from the principle laid down in the original report of the com- 
mittee as a rule of action in all future territorial organizations. Fortunately 
there is no necessity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of 
argument at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in 
detail, and to reply to each charge separately. Each speaker seems to have 
followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader — in the path marked out by 
the Abolition confederates in their manifesto, which I exposed on a former 
occasion. You have seen them on their winding way, meandering the nar- 
row and crooked path in Indian file, each treading close upon the heels of 
the other, and neither venturing to take a step to the right or left, or to oc- 
cupy one inch of ground which did not bear the foot-print of the Abolition 
champion. To answer one, therefore, is to answer the whole. The state- 
ment to which they seem to attach the most importance, and which they 
have repeated oftener perhaps than any other, is that, pending the Compromise 
measures of 1850, no man in or out of Congress ever dreamed of abrogating 
the Missouri Compromise ; that from that period down to the present session 
nobody supposed that its validity had been impaired, or any thing done 
which rendered it obligatory upon us to make it inoperative hereafter ; that 
at the time of submitting the report and bill to the Senate, on the 4th of Jan- 
uary last, neither I nor any member of the committee ever thought of such a 
thing ; and that we could never be brought up to the point of abrogating the 
eighth section of the Missouri act until after the senator from Kentucky in- 
troduced his amendment to my bill. 

Mr. President, before I proceed to expose the many misrepresentations 
contained in this complicated charge, I must call the attention of the Senate 
to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavoring to impose upon 
the country, for the purpose of diverting public attention from the real issue 
contained in the bill. They wish to have the people believe that the abrogation 
of what they call the Missouri Compromise was the main object and aim of the 
bill, and that the only question involved is, whether the prohibition of slav- 
ery north of 36° 30' shall be repealed or not? That which is a mere inci- 
dent they choose to consider the principal. They make war on the means 
by which we propose to accomplish an object, instead of openly resisting the 
object itself. The principle which we propose to carry into effect by the 
bill is this : That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any territories > 
or state, nor out of the same ; out the people shall be left free to regulate their 
domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States. 



224 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes neces- 
sary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the way of its 
free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out this great funda- 
mental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth section 
of the Missouri act inoperative and void. 

Now, let me ask, will these senators who have arraigned me, or any one 
of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great 
principle was never thought of or advocated as applicable to territorial bills, 
in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of 
incorporating this principle in all new territorial organizations ; that the 
Committee on Territories did not recommend it in their report ; and that it 
required the amendment of the senator from Kentucky to bring us up to 
that point ? "Will any one of my accusers dare to make this issue, and let it 
be tried by the record ? I will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any 
senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals will find that on 
the 25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories 
two bills including the following measures : the admission of California, a 
territorial government for Utah, a territorial government for New Mexico, 
and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave 
the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for 
themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska Bill now under discussion. 
A few weeks afterwards, the Committee of Thirteen took those two bills and 
put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one 
bill, with some slight amendments. One of those amendments was, that the 
territorial legislatures should not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. 
I objected to that provision upon the ground that it subverted the great prin- 
ciple of self-government upon which the bill had been originally framed by 
the Territorial Committee. On the first trial, the Senate refused to strike it 
out, but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order to establish that 
principle as the rule of action in territorial organizations. 

Mr. Dodge, of Iowa. It was done on your own motion, 

Mr. Douglas. Upon this point I trust I will be excused for reading one or 
two sentences from some remarks I made in the Senate, on the 3d of June, 
1850: 

" The position that I have ever taken has been that this, the slavery ques- 
tion, and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic 
policy of the territories, ought to be left to the decision of the people them- 
selves, and that we ought to be content with whatever way they would de- 
cide the question, because they have a much deeper interest in these mattters 
than we have, and know much better what institutions will suit them, than 
we, who have never been there, can decide for them." 

Again, in the same debate, I said : 

" I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we 
have taken, (that of non-interference,) and have argued in favor of the right 
of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, can support such a 
provision without abandoning all the arguments which we urged in the 
presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the 
honorable senator from Michigan in that letter which is known as the 
'Nicholson letter.' We are required to abandon that platform; we are re- 
quired to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the 
opposite doctrine ; and for what ? In order to say that the people of the 
territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to 
their oondition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a provision as 
that can be acceptable either to the people of the North or the South." 

Mr. President, I could go on and multiply extract after extract from my 
speeches in 1850, and prior to that date, to show that this doctrine of leaving 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 225 

the people to decide these questions for themselves is not an " after-thought" 
with me, seized upon this session for the first time, as my calumniators have 
so frequently and boldly charged in their speeches during this debate, and in 
their manifesto to the public. I refused to support the celebrated Omnibus 
Bill in 1850 until the obnoxious provision was stricken out, and the principle 
of self-government restored, as it existed in my original bill. No sooner 
were the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, than the Abolition confeder- 
ates, who lead the opposition to this bill now, raised the cry of repeal in 
some sections of the country, and in others forcible resistance to the execu- 
tion of the law. In order to arrest and suppress the treasonable purposes 
of these Abolition confederates, and avert the horrors of civil war, it became 
my duty, on the 23d of October, 1850, to address an excited and frenzied 
multitude at Chicago, in defence of each and all the Compromise measures 
of that year. I will read one or two sentences from that speech, to show 
hovcthose measures were then understood and explained by their advocates : 
"" These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every 
people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal 
concerns and domestic institutions in their own way" 

Again : 

" These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide 
for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should not be 
confided to the territories." -^ 

In this speech it will be seen that I lay down a general principle of uni- 
versal application, and make no distinction between territories North or 
South of 36° 30'. 

I am aware that some of the Abolition confederates have perpetrated a mon- 
strous forgery on that speech, and are now circulating though the Abolition 
newspapers the statement that I said that I would " cling with the tenacity 
of life to the Compromise of 1850." This statement, false as it is— a deliber- 
ate act of forgery, as it is known to be by all who have ever seen or read 
the speech referred to — constitutes the staple article out of which most of 
the Abolition orators at the small anti-Nebraska meetings manufacture the 
greater part of their speches. I now declare that there is not a sentence, or 
a line, nor even a word in that speech, which imposes the slightest limita- 
tion on the application of the great principle embraced in this bill in all new 
territorial organizations, without the least reference to the line of 36° 30'. 

At the session of 1850-51, a few weeks after this speech was made at 
Chicago, and when it had been published in pamphlet form and circulated 
extensively over the States, the Legislature of Illinois proceeded to revise its 
action upon the slavery question, and define its position on the Compromise 
of 1850. After rescinding the resolutions adopted at a previous session, in- 
structing my colleague and myself to vote for a proposition prohibiting 
slavery in the territories, resolutions were adopted approving the Compro- 
mise measures of 1850. I will read one of the resolutions, which was 
adopted in the House of Representatives, by a vote of 61 yeas to 4 nays : 

" Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of 
the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; 
that this great privilege — the birthright of freemen, the gift of heaven, se- 
cured to us by the blood of our ancestors — ought to be extended to future 
generations ; and no limitation ought to be applied to this power, in the or- 
ganization of any territory of the United States, of either a territorial gov- 
ernment or a State Constitution : Provided, the government so established 
shall be republican, and in conformity with the Constitution." 

Another series of resolutions having passed the Senate almost unanimously, 
embracing the same principle in different language, they were concurred in 
by the house. Thus was the position of Illinois, upon the slavery question, 

K2 



226 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

defined at the first session of the Legislature after the adoption of the Com- 
promise of 1850. 

Now, sir, what becomes of the declaration which has been made by nearly 
every opponent of this bill, that nobody in this whole Union ever dreamed 
that the principle of the Utah and New Mexican bill was to be incorporated 
into all future territorial organizations ? I have shown that my own State 
so understood and declared it at the time in the most explicit and solemn 
manner. Illinois declared that our " liberty and independence" rest upon 
this "principle;" that the principle " ought to be extended to future genera- 
tions;" and that "no limitation ought to be applied to this power in 

THE ORGANIZATION OP ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES." No excep- 
tion is made in regard to Nebraska. No Missouri compromise line ; no 
reservation of the country north of 36° 30', The principle is declared to be 
the "birthright of freemen;" the "gift of Heaven," to be "applied without 
limitation," in Nebraska as well as Utah, North as well as South of 36° 30'. 

It may not be out of place here to remark that the Legislature of Illinois, 
at its recent session, has passed resolutions approving the Nebraska bill ; and 
among the resolutions is one in the precise language of the resolution of 1851, 
which I have just read to the Senate. 

Thus I have shown, Mr. President, that the Legislature and people of Illi- 
nois have always understood the Compromise measures of 1850 as establishing 
certain principles as rules of action in the organization of all new territories, 
and that no limitation was to be made on either side of the geographical line 
of 36° 30'. 

Neither my time nor your patience will allow me to take up the resolu- 
tions of the different states in detail, and show what has been the common 
understanding of the whole country upon this point. I am now vindicating 
myself and my own action against the assaults of my calumniators ; and, for 
that purpose, it is sufficient to show that, in the report and bill which I have 
presented to the Senate, I have only carried out the known principles and 
solemnly declared will of the state whose representative I am. I will now 
invite the attention of the Senate to the report of the committee, in order 
that it may be known how much, or rather how little, truth there is for the 
allegation which has been so often made and repeated on this floor, that the 
idea of allowing the people in Nebraska to decide the slavery question for 
themselves was a "sheer after-thought," conceived since the report was 
made, and not until the senator from Kentucky proposed his amendment to 
the biU. 

I read from that portion of the report in which the committee lay down the 
principle by which they proposed to be governed : 

" In the judgment of your committee, those measures (Compromise of 1850) 
were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than 
the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising -out of the recent acquisition 
of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great princi- 
ples, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but 
in all time to come avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the 
question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- 
mitting it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in and 
alone responsible for its consequences." 

After making a brief argument in defence of this principle, the report pro- 
ceeds, as follows : 

" From these provisions, it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 
1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions : 

" First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories and in 
the new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the 
people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by 
them for that purpose." 



TIIE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 227 

And, in conclusion, the report proposes a substitute for the bill introduced 
by the senator from Iowa, and concludes as follows : 

" The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and 
which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry 
these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise lan- 
guage of the Compromise measures of 1850." 

Mr. President, as there has been so much misrepresentation upon this point, 
I must be permitted to repeat that the doctrine of the report of the commit- 
tee, as has been conclusively proved by these extracts, is — 

First. That the whole question of slavery should be withdrawn from the 
halls of Congress, and the political arena, and committed to the arbitrament 
of those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its ex- 
istence. 

Second. The applying this principle to the territories and the new states 
to be formed therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery were to be re- 
ferred to the people residing therein. 

Third. That the committee proposed to carry these propositions and prin- 
ciples into effect in the precise language of the Compromise measures of 1850. 

Are not these propositions identical with the principles and provisions of 
the bill on your table? If there is a hair's breadth of discrepancy between 
the two, I ask any senator to rise in his place and point it out. Both rest 
upon the great principle, which forms the basis of all our institutions, that 
the people are to decide the question for themselves, subject only to the 
Constitution. 

But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby divert pub- 
lic attention from the real one, by the cry that the Missouri Compromise is to 
be repealed or violated by the passage of this bill. Well, if the eighth section 
of the Missouri Act, which attempted to fix the destinies of future genera- 
tions in those territories for all time to come, in utter disregard of the rights 
and wishes of the people when they should be received into the Union as 
states, be inconsistent with the great principle of self-government and the 
Constitution of the United States, it ought to be abrogated. The legislation 
of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise, so far as the country embraced 
within the limits of Utah and New Mexico was covered by the slavery re- 
striction. It is true, that those acts did not in terms and by name repeal 
the act of 1820, as originally adopted, or as extended by the resolutions an- 
nexing Texas in 1845, any more than the report of the Committee on Terri- 
tories proposes to repeal the same acts this session. But the acts of 1850 did 
authorize the people of those territories to exercise " all rightful powers of 
legislation consistent with the Constitution," not excepting the question of 
slavery ; and did provide that, when those territories should be admitted 
into the Union, they should be received with or without slavery, as the peo- 
ple thereof might determine at the date of their admission. These provisions 
were in direct conflict with a clause in a former enactment, declaring that 
slavery should be forever prohibited in any portion of said territories, and 
hence rendered such clause inoperative and void to the extent of such con- 
flict. This was an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in 
those acts which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question for 
themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not necessary to go 
further and declare that certain previous enactments, which were incompati- 
ble with the exercise of the powers conferred in the bills, " are hereby re- 
pealed." The very act of granting those powers and rights has the legal 
effect of removing all obstructions to the exercise of them by the people, as 
prescribed in those territorial bills. Following that example, the Committee 
on Territories did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section of 
the Missouri Act repealed. We were content to organize Nebraska in the 



228 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

precise language of the Utah and New Mexican bills. Our object was to 
leave the people entirely free to form arfd regulate their domestic institutions 
and internal concerns in their own way, under the Constitution ; and we 
deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the exact terms in which the 
same thing had been done in Utah and New Mexico by the acts of 1850. 
This was the principle upon which the committee reported ; and our bill was 
supposed, and is now believed, to have been in accordance with it. When 
doubts were raised whether the bill did fully carry out the principles laid 
down in the report, amendments were made, from time to time, in order to 
avoid all misconstruction, and make the true intent of the act more explicit, 
The last of these amendments was adopted yesterday, on the motion of the 
distinguished senator from North Carolina, (Mr. Badger,) in regard to the 
revival of any laws or regulations which may have existed prior to 1820. 
That amendment was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill. Its 
object was to repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies 
of the measure in the North, that the southern supporters of the bill desired 
to legislate slavery into these territories. The South denies the right of 
Congress either to legislate slavery into any territory or state, or out of any ter- 
ritory or state. Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the states or 
territories is the doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which have 
been agreed to have been made with the view of removing all doubt and 
cavil as to the true meaning and object of the measure. 

Mr. President, I think I have succeeded in vindicating myself and the action 
of the committee from the assaults which have been made upon us in conse- 
quence of these amendments. It seems to be the tactics of our opponents to 
direct their arguments against the unimportant points and incidental questions 
which are to be affected by carrying out the principle, with the hope of reliev- 
ing themselves from the necessity of controverting the principle itself. The 
senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) led off gallantly in the charge that the com- 
mittee, in the report and bill first submitted, did not contemplate the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise, and could not be brought to that point until after the 
senator from Kentucky offered his amendment. The senator from Connecti- 
cut (Mr. Smith) followed his lead, and repeated the same statement. Then 
came the other senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade), and the senator from New 
York (Mr. Seward), and the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), all 
singing the same song, only varying the tune. 

Let me ask these senators what they mean by this statement ? Do they 
wish to be understood as saying that the report and first form of the bill did 
not provide for leaving the slavery question to the decision of the people in the 
terms of the Utah bill? Surely they will not dare to say that, for I have 
already shown that the two measures were identical in principle and enact- 
ment. Do they mean to say that the adoption of our first bill would not have 
had the legal effect to have rendered the eighth section of the Missouri Act 
" inoperative and void," to use the language of the present bill ? If this be 
not their meaning, will they rise in their places and inform the Senate what 
their meaning was ? They must have had some object in giving so much prom- 
inence to this statement, and in repeating it so often. I address the question 
to the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner). I 
despair in extorting a response from them ; for no matter in what way they 
may answer upon this point, I have in my hand the evidence, over their own 
signatures, to disprove the truth of their answer. I allude to their appeal or 
manifesto to the people of the United States, in which they arraign the bill 
and report, in coarse and savage terms, as a proposition to repeal the Missouri 
Compromise, to violate plighted faith, to abrogate a solemn compact, etc., etc. 
This document was signed by these two senators in their official capacity, and 
published to the world before any amendments had been offered to the bill. 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 229 

It was directed against the committee's first bill and report, and against them 
alone. If the statements in this document be true, that the first bill did repeal 
the eighth section of the Missouri Act, what are we to think of the statements 
in their speeches since, that such was not the intention of the commitee, was 
not the recommendation of the report, and was not the legal effect of the bill ? 
On the contrary, if the statements in the subsequent speeches are true, what 
apology do those senators propose to make to the Senate and country for hav- 
ing falsified the action of the committee in a document over their own signa- 
tures, and thus spread a false alarm among the people, and misled the public 
mind in respect to our proceedings ? These senators cannot avoid tiie one or 
the other of these alternatives. Let them seize upon either, and they stand 
condemned and self-convicted; in the one case by their manifesto, and in the 
other by their speeches. 

In fact, it is clear that they have understood the bill to mean the same thing, 
and to have the same legal effect in whatever phase it has been presented. 
"When first introduced, they denounced it as a proposition to abrogate the 
Missouri restriction. When amended, they repeated they same denunciation, 
and so on each successive amendment. They now object to the passage of 
the bill for the same reason, thus proving conclusively that they have not the 
least faith in the correctness of their own statements in respect to the muta- 
tions and changes in the bill. 

They seem very unwilling to meet the real issue. They do not like to 
discuss the principle. There seems to be something which strikes them with 
terror when you invite their attention to that great fundamental principle of 
popular sovereignty. Hence you find that all the memorials they have pre- 
sented are against repealing the Missouri Compromise, and in favor of the sanc- 
tity of compacts — in favor of preserving plighted faith. The senator from 
Ohio is cautious to dedicate his speech with some such heading as " Maintain 
Plighted Faith." The object is to keep the attention of the people as far as 
possible from the principle of self-government and constitutional rights. 
' Well, sir, what is this Missouri Compromise, of which we have heard so 
much of late ? It has been read so often that it is not necessary to occupy the 
time of the Senate in reading it again. It was an act of Congress, passed on 
the 6th of March, 1S20, to authorize the people of Missouri to form a Constitu- 
tion and a state government, preparatory to the admission of such state into 
the Union. The first section provided that Missouri should be received into 
the Union " on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatso- 
ever." The last and eighth section provided that slavery should be " forever 
prohibited" in all the territories which had been acquired from France North 
of 36° 30", and not included within the limits of the State of Missouri. There 
is nothing in the terms of the law that purports to be a compact, or indicates 
that it was any thing more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that 
it was more than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce other 
evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to create a moral 
obligation in the nature of a compact. Have they shown it ? 

I have heard but one item of evidence produced during this whole debate, 
and that was a short paragraph from Niles's Register, published a few days 
after the passage of the act. But gentlemen aver that it was a solemn com- 
pact, which could not be violated or abrogated without dishonor. Accord- 
ing to their understanding, the contract was that, in consideration of the 
admission of Missouri into the Union, on an equal footing with the original 
states in all respects whatsoever, slavery should be prohibited forever in the 
territories North of 36° 30'. Now, who were the parties to this alleged com- 
pact ? They tell us that it was a stipulation between the North and the South. 
Sir, I know of no such parties under the Constitution. I am unwilling that 
there shall be any such parties known in our legislation. If there is 



230 LIFE OF STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 

such a geographical line, it ought to be obliterated forever ; and there should 
be no other parties than those provided for in the Constitution, viz : the 
States of this Union. These are the only parties capable of contracting under 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. The bill 
originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that body without a 
southern vote in its favor. It is proper to remark, however, that it did not at 
that time contain the eighth section, prohibiting slavery in the territories ; 
but, in lieu of it, contained a provision prohibiting slavery in the proposed 
State of Missouri In the Senate, the clause prohibiting slavery in the state 
was stricken out, and the eighth section added to the end of the bill, by the 
terms of which slavery was to be forever prohibited in the territory not em- 
braced in the State of Missouri north of 36° 30'. The vote on adding this 
section stood, in the Senate, 34 in the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. Of 
the northern senators, 20 voted for jit and 2 against it. On the question of 
ordering the bill to a third reading as amended, which was the test vote on 
its passage, the vote stood 24 yeas and 20 nays. Of the northern senators, 4 
only voted in the affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thus it will be seen 
that, if it was intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to it. The 
northern senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the territories ; 
and then, in the proportion of more than four to one, voted against the pas- 
sage of the bill. The North, therefore, never signed the compact, never con- 
sented to it, never agreed to be bound by it. This fact becomes very import- 
ant in vindicating the character of the North for repudiating this alleged com- 
promise a few months afterwards. The act was approved and became a law 
on the 6th of March, 1820. In the summer of that year, the people of Mis- 
souri formed a Constitution and state government preparatory to admission in- 
to the Union, in conformity with the act. At the next session of Congress 
the Senate passed a joint resolution, declaring Missouri to be one of the states 
of the Union, on an equal footing with the original states. This resolution 
was sent to the House of Representatives, where it was rejected by northern 
votes, and thus Missouri was voted .out of the Union, instead of being re- 
ceived into the Union under the act of the 6th of March, 1820, now known as 
the Missouri Compromise. Now, sir, what becomes of our plighted faith, if 
the act of the 6th of March, 1820, was a solemn compact, as we are now 
told ? They have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred and irre- 
vocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals, which could not 
be violated or repudiated without perfidy and dishonor ! The two senators 
from Ohio, [Mr. Chase and Mr. "Wade,] the senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Sumner,] the senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Smith,] the senator from New 
Tork, [Mr. Seward,] and perhaps others, have ah assumed this position. 

Mr. Seward. "Will the senator excuse me for a moment ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 

Mr. Seward. Mr. President, I have foreseen that it would be probable 
that the honorable senator from Illinois would have occasion to reply to many 
arguments which have been made by the opponents of this measure ; and it 
would seem, therefore, to create a necessity, on the part of the opponents of 
the bill to answer his arguments afterwards. Yet, at the same time, meaning 
to be fair, and desiring to have no such advantage as the last word, but to 
leave it to him, to whom it rightly belongs, I had proposed, if agreeable to 
him, when he should state anything which controverted my own position, to 
make the answer during his speech, instead of deferring it until afterwards. 
To me the last word is never of any advantage ; but I know that it is to him, 
and ought to bo so regarded by him. I have a word to say here, and I pro- 
pose to say another word at another time ; but if it be at all uncomfortable to 
the senator, I will reserve what I have to say until after he concludes. 



THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA ACT. 231 

Mr. Douglas. If it will take but a minute, I will yield now ; but if the 
senator is to take considerable time, I prefer to go on myself. 

Mr. Seward. No, sir, I make no long speeches anywhere ; I never make 
a long speech, and therefore I would prefer saying what I have to submit 
now, if the honorable senator prefers it. 

Mr. Douglas. Yery well. 

Mr. Seward. I thought he would. In the first place, I find that the hon- 
orable senator is coming upon my own ground in regard to compromises. 

Mr. Douglas. That is not a vindication of any point which I have at- 
tacked. I hope the honorable senator will state his point. 

Mr. Seward. I am going to state the point, or I will state nothing. "Who- 
ever will refer to my antecedents will find that in the year 1850 I expressed 
opinions on the subject of legislative compromises between the North and 
South, which, at that day, were rejected and repudiated. 

Mr. Douglas. If the object of the senator is to go back, and go through all 
his opinions, I can not yield the floor to him ; but if his object is now to 
show that the North did not violate the Missouri Compromise, I will yield. 

Mr. Seward. If the honorable senator will allow me just one minute and 
a half, without dictating what I shall say within that minute and a half, I 
shall be satisfied. 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly, I will consent to that. 

Mr. Seward. I find that the honorable senator from Illinois is standing 
upon the ground upon which I stood in 1850. I have nothing to say now 
in favor of that ground. On this occasion, I stand upon the ground, in re- 
gard to compromises, which has been adopted by the country. Then, when 
the senator tells me that the North did not altogether, willingly, and unani- 
mously, consent to the Compromise of 1820, I agree to it ; but I have been 
overborne in the country, on the ground that if one northern man carried 
with him a majority of Congress he bound the whole North. And so I hold 
in regard to the Compromise of 1820, that it was carried by a vote which 
has been held by the South and by the honorable senator from Illinois to 
bind the North. The South having received their consideration and equiva- 
lent, I only hold him, upon his own doctrine and the doctrine of the South, 
bound to stand to it. That is all I have to say upon that point. 

A few words more will cover all that I have to say about what the hon- 
orable senator may say hereafter as to the North repudiating this contract. 
"When I was absent, I understood the senator alluded to the fact that my 
name appeared upon an appeal which was issued by the honorable senator 
from Ohio, and some other members of Congress, to the people, on the sub- 
ject of this bill. Upon that point it has been my intention throughout to 
leave to the honorable senator from Illinois, and those who act with him, 
whatever there is of merit, and whatever there is of responsibility for the 
present measure, and for all the agitation and discussion upon it. There- 
fore, as soon as I found, when I returned to the Capitol, that my name was 
on that paper, I caused it to be made known and published, as fully and ex- 
tensively as I could, that I had never been consulted in regard to it ; that I 
know nothing about it ; and that the merit of the measure, as well as the 
responsibility, belonged to the honorable senator from Ohio, and those who 
cooperated with him ; and that I had never seen the paper on which he 
commented ; nor have I in any way addressed the public upon the sub- 
ject. 

Mr. Douglas. I wish to ask the senator from New York a question. If I 
understood his remarks when he spoke, and if I understand his speech as 
published, he averred that the Missouri Compromise was a compact between 
the North and the South ; that the North performed it on its part ; that it 
had done so faithfully for thirty years ; that the South had received all its 



232 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

benefits, and the moment these benefits had been fully realized, the South 
disavowed the obligations under which \t had received them. Is not that 
his position ? 

Mr. Seward. I am not accustomed to answer questions put to me, unless 
they are entirely categorical, and placed in such a shape that I may know 
exactly, and have time to consider, their whole extent. The honorable sen- 
ator from Illinois has put a very broad question. "What I mean to say, how- 
ever, and that will answer his purpose, is, that his position, and that the 
position of the South is, that this was a compromise ; and I say that the 
North has never repudiated that compromise. Indeed, it has never had the 
power to do so. Missouri came into the Union, and Arkansas came into the 
Union, under that compromise ; and whatever individuals may have said, 
whatever individuals, more or less humble than myself, may have contended, 
the practical effect is, that the South has had all that she could get by that 
compromise, and that the North is now in the predicament of being obliged to 
defend what was left to her. I believe that answers the question. 

Mr. Douglas. Now, Mr. President, I choose to bring men directly up to 
this point. The senator from New York has labored in his whole speech to 
make it appear that this was a compact ; that the North had been faithful ; 
and that the South acquiesced until she got all its advantages, and then dis- 
avowed and sought to annul it. This he pronounced to be bad faith ; and 
he made appeals about dishonor. The senator from Connecticut [Mr. Smith] 
did the same thing, and so did the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], 
and the senator from Ohio [Mr. Chase]. That is the great point to which 
the whole abolition party are now directing all their artillery in this battle. 
Now, I propose to bring them to the point. If this was a compact, and 
if what they have said is fair, or just, or true, who was it that repudiated 
the compact ? 

Mr. Sumner. Mr. President, the senator from Illinois, I know, does not in- 
tend to misstate my position. That position, as announced in the language 
of the speech which I addressed to the Senate, and which I now hold in my 
hand, is, " this is an infraction of solemn obligations, assumed beyond recall 
by the South, on the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave state;" 
which was one year after the act of 1820. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I shall come to that ; and I wish to see 
whether this was an obligation which was assumed "beyond recall." If it 
was a compact between the two parties, and one party has been faithful, 
it is beyond recall by the other. If, however, one party has been faithless, 
what shall we think of them, if, while faithless, they ask a performance ? 

Mr. Seward. Show it. 

Mr. Douglas. That is what I am coming to. I have already stated that, 
at the next session of Congress, Missouri presented a Constitution in conform- 
ity with the act of 1820; that the Senate passed a joint resolution to admit 
her; and that the house refused to admit Missouri in conformity with the 
alleged compact, and, I think, on three distinct votes, rejected her. 

Mr. Seward. I beg my honorable friend, for I desire to call him so, to 
answer me frankly whether he would rather I should say what I have to say 
in this desultory way, or whether he would prefer that I should answer him 
afterwards ; because it is with me a rule in the Senate never to interrupt a 
gentleman, except to help him in his argument. 

Mr. Douglas. I would rather hear the senator now. 

Mr. Seward. "What I have to say now, and I acknowledge the magnani- 
mity of the senator from Illinois in allowing me to say it, is, that the North 
stood by that compact until Missouri came in with a Constitution, one article 
of which denied to colored citizens of other States the equality of privileges 
which were allowed to all other citizens of the United States, and then the 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 233 

North insisted on the right or colored men to be regarded as citizens, and en- 
titled to the privileges and immunities of citizens. Upon that a new compro- 
mise was necessary. I hope I am candid. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator is candid, I have no doubt, as he understands 
the facts ; but I undertake to maintain that the North objected to Missouri 
because she allowed slavery, and not because of the free-negro clause alone. 

Mr. Seward. No, sir. 

Mr. Douglas. Now I will proceed to prove that the North did not object, 
solely on account of the free-negro clause ; but that, in the House of Repre- 
sentatives at that time, the North objected as well because of slavery as in 
regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence. In the House of Representa- 
tives, on the 12th of February, 1821, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved to 
amend the Senate joint resolution for the admission of Missouri, as follows : 

" To amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the word 
respects, and inserting the following : ' Whenever the people of the said State, 
by a convention, appointed according to the manner provided by the act to 
authorize the people of Missouri to form a Constitution and state government, 
and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with 
the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories, approved 
March 6, 1820, adopt a Constitution conformably to the provisions of said act, 
and shall, in addition to said provision, further provide, in and oy said Con- 
stitution, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be allowed in 
said Slate of Missouri, unless inflicted as a punishment for crimes committed 
against the laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly con- 
victed : Provided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held 
to service in Missouri shall not be affected by this last provision." 

Here I show, then, that the proposition was made that Missouri should 
not come in unless, in addition to complying with the Missouri Compromise, 
she would go further, and prohibit slavery within the limits of the state. 

Mr. Seward. Now, then, for the vote. 

Mr. Douglas. The vote was taken by yeas and nays. I hold it in my 
hand. Sixty-one northern men voted for that amendment, and thirty-three 
against it. Thus the North, by a vote of nearly two to one, expressly repu- 
diated a solemn compact upon the very matter in controversy, to wit : that 
slavery should not be prohibited in the State of Missouri. 

Mr. Weller. Let the senator from New York answer that. 

Mr. Douglas. I should like to hear his answer. 

Mr. Seward. I desire, if I shall be obtrusive by speaking in this way, 
that senators will at once signify, or that any senator will signify, that I am 
obtrusive. But I make these explanations in this way, for the reason that I 
desire to give the honorable senator from Illinois the privilege of hearing my 
answer to him as he goes along. It is simply this : That this doctrine of com- 
promises is, as it has been held, that if so many northern men shall go with 
so many southern men as to fix the law, then it binds the North and South 
alike. I therefore have but one answer to make : that the vote for the restric- 
tion was less than the northern vote which was given against the whole com- 
promise. 

Mr. Douglas. "Well, now, we come to this point: "We have been told, 
during this debate, that you must not judge of the North by the minority, but 
by her majority. You have been told that the minority, who stood by the 
Constitution and the rights of the South, were dough-faces. 

Mr. Seward. I have not said so. I will not say so. 

Mr. Douglas. You have all said so in your speeches, and you have asked 
us to take the majority of the North. 

Mr. Seward. I spoke of the practical fact. I never said anything about 
dough-faces. 



234 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Mr. Douglas. You have asked us to take the majority instead of the minority. 

Mr. Seward. The majority of the country. 

Mr. Douglas. I am talking of the majority of the northern vote. 

Mr. Seward. No, sir. 

Mr. Douglas. I hope the senator will hear me. I wish to recall him to 
the issue. I stated that the North in the House of Eepresentatives voted 
against admitting Missouri into the Union under the act of 1820, and caused 
the defeat of that measure ; and he said that they voted against it on the 
ground of the free-negro clause in her Constitution, and not upon the ground 
of slavery. Now, I have shown by the evidence that it was upon the ground 
of slavery, as well as upon the other ground ; and that a majority of the North 
required not only that Missouri should comply with the compact of 1820, so 
called, but that she- should go further, and give up the whole consideration 
which the senator says the South received from the North for the Missouri 
Compromise. The compact, he says, was that in consideration of slavery 
being permitted in Missouri, it should be prohibited in the territories. After 
having procured the prohibition in the territories, the North, by a majority 
of her votes, refused to admit Missouri as a slaveholding state, and, in viola- 
tion of the alleged compact, required her to prohibit slavery as a further con- 
dition of her admission. This repudiation of the alleged compact by the North 
is recorded by yeas and nays, sixty-one to thirty-three, and entered upon the 
Journal, as an imperishable evidence of the fact. "With this evidence before 
us, against whom should the charge of perfidy be preferred? 

Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who violated it 
almost immediately after it was formed ? I say it was a calumny upon the 
North to say that it was a compact. I should feel a flush of shame upon my 
cheek, as a northern man, if I were to say that it was a compact, and that 
the section of country to which I belong received the consideration, and 
then repudiated the obligation in eleven months after it was entered into. I 
deny that it was a compact in any sense of the term. But if it was, the 
record proves that faith was not observed ; that the contract was never car- 
ried into effect ; that after the North had procured the passage of the act 
prohibiting slavery in the territories, with a majority in the house large 
enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admission into the Union 
as a slaveholding state, in conformity with the act of March 6, 1820. If the 
proposition be correct, as contended for by the opponents of this bill, that 
there was a solemn comjmct between the North and South that, in consider- 
ation of the prohibition of slavery in the territories, Missouri was to be ad- 
mitted into the Union in conformity with the act of 1820, that compact was 
repudiated by the North and rescinded by the joint action of the two parties 
within twelve months from its date. Missouri was never admitted under the 
act of the 6th of March, 1820. She was refused admission under that act. 
She was voted out of the Union by northern votes, notwithstanding the stip- 
ulation that she should be received ; and,_ in consequence of these facts, a 
new compromise was rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri 
was to be admitted into the Union conditionally — admitted on a condition 
not embraced in the act of 1820, and, in addition, to a full compliance with 
all the provisions of said act. If, then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section 
of which slavery was prohibited in the territories, was a compact, it is clear 
to the comprehension of every fair-minded man that the refusal of the North 
to admit Missouri, in compliance with its stipulations, and without further 
conditions, imposes upon us a high moral obligation to remove the prohibi- 
tion of slavery in the territories, since it has been shown to have been pro- 
cured upon a condition never performed. 

Mr. President, in as much as the senator from New York has taken great 
pains to impress upon the public mind of the North the conviction that the 



TIIE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 235 

act of 1820 -was a solemn compact, the violation or repudiation of which by 
either party involves perfidy and dishonor, I wish to call the attention of 
that senator (Mr. Seward) to the fact that his own state was the first to re- 
pudiate the compact and to instruct her senators in Congress not to admit 
Missouri into the Union in compliance with it, nor unless slavery should be 
prohibited fn the State of Missouri. 

Mr. Seward. That is so. 

Mr. Douglas. I have the resolutions before me, in the printed Journal of 
the Senate. The senator from New York is familiar with the fact, and 
frankly admits it : 

" State of New York, ) 

"In Assembly, November 13, 1820. j" 

" "Whereas, the legislature of this state, at the last session, did instruct 
their senators and request their representatives in Congress to oppose the 
admission, as a state, into the Union, of any territory not comprised within 
the original boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition 
of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission ; and whereas 
this legislature is impressed with the correctness of the sentiments so com- 
municated to our senators and representatives : Therefore, 

"Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That this legislature 
does approve of the principles contained in the resolutions of the last session ; 
and further, if the provisions contained in any proposed Constitution of a new 
state deny to any citizens of the existing states, the privileges and immuni- 
ties of citizens of such new state, that such proposed Constitution should not 
be accepted or confirmed ; the same, in the opinion of this legislature, being 
void by the Constitution of the United States. And that our senators be in- 
structed, and our representatives in Congress be requested, to use their ut- 
most exertions to prevent the acceptance and confirmation of any such Con- 
stitution." 

It will be seen by these resolutions that at the previous session the New 
York Legislature had " instructed" the senators from that state " to oppose 

THE ADMISSION, AS A STATE, INTO THE UNION OP ANY TERRITORY not Com- 
prised within the original boundaries of the United States, without making 
THE PROHIBITION OP SLAVERY THEREIN AN INDISPENSABLE CONDITION OP AD- 
MISSION." 

These instructions are not confined to territory North of 36° 30'. They 
apply, and were intended to apply, to the whole country "West of the Missis- 
sippi, and to all territory which might hereafter be acquired. They deny 
the right of Arkansas to admission as a slaveholding state, as well as Mis- 
souri. They lay down a general principle to be applied and insisted upon 
everywhere, and in all cases, and under all circumstances. These resolutions 
were first adopted prior to the passage of the act of March 6, 1820, which the 
senator now chooses to call a compact. But they were renewed and repeated 
on the 13th of November, 1820, a little more than eight months after the 
adoption of the Missouri Compromise, as instructions to the New York sen- 
ators to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state, notwith- 
standing the stipulations in the alleged compact. Now, let me ask the sen- 
ator from New York by what authority he declared and published in his 
speech that the act of 1820 was a compact which could not be violated or 
repudiated without a sacrifice of honor, justice, and good faith. Perhaps he 
will shelter himself behind the resolutions of his state, which he presented 
this session, branding this bill as a violation of plighted faith. 

Mr. Seward. Will the senator allow me a word of explanation ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly, with a great deal of pleasure. 

Mr. Seward. I wish simply to say that the State of New York, for now 
thirty years, has refused to make any compact on any terms by which a con- 



236 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

cession should be made for the extension of slavery. But, by the practical 
action of the Congress of the United States, compromises have been made, 
which, it is held by the honorable senator from Illinois and by the South, 
bind her against her consent and approval. And therefore she stands 
throughout this whole matter upon the same ground — always refusing to 
enter into a compromise, always insisting upon the prohibition of slavery 
within the Territories of the United States. But, on this occasion, we stand 
here with a contract which has stood for thirty years, notwithstanding our 
protest and dissent, and in which there is nothing left to be fulfilled except 
that part which is to be beneficial to us. All the rest has been fulfilled, and 
we stand here with our old opinions on the whole subject of compromises, 
demanding fulfillment on the part of the South, which the honorable sena- 
tor from Illinois on the present occasion represents. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, the senator undoubtedly speaks for himself 
very frankly and very candidly. 

Mr. Seivard. Certainly I do. 

Mr. Douglas. But I deny that on this point he speaks for the State of 
New York. 

Mr. Seward. "We shall see. 

Mr. Douglas. I will state the reason why I say so. He has presented 
here resolutions of the State of New York which have been adopted this 
year, declaring the act of March 6, 1820, to be a " solemn compact." 

I read from the second resolution : 

" But at the same time duty to themselves and to the other states of the 
Union demands that when an effort is making to violate a solemn compact, 
whereby the political power of the state and the privileges as well as the 
honest sentiments of its citizens will be jeoparded and invaded, they should 
raise their voice in protest against the threatened infraction of their rights, 
and declare that the negation or repeal by Congress of the Missouri compro- 
mise will be regarded by them as a violation of right and of faith, and de- 
structive of that confidence and regard which should attach to the enact- 
ments of the federal legislature." 

Mr. President, I cannot let the senator off on the plea that I, for the sake 
of the argument, in reply to him and other opponents of this bill, have called 
it a compact ; or that the South have called it a compact ; or that other 
friends of Nebraska have called it a compact which has been violated and 
rendered invalid. He and his abolition confederates have arraigned me for a 
violation of a compact which, they say, is binding in morals, in conscience, 
and honor. I have shown that the legislature of New York, at its present 
session, has declared it to be " a solemn compact," and that its repudiation 
would " be regarded by them as a violation of right and of faith, and destruc- 
tive of confidence and regard." I have also shown that if it be such a com- 
pact, the State of New York stands self-condemned and self-convicted as the 
first to repudiate and violate it. 

But since the senator has chosen to make an issue with me in respect to 
the action of New York, with the view of condemning my conduct here, I 
will invite the attention of the senator to another portion of these resolutions. 
Referring to the fourteenth section of the Nebraska Bill, the Legislature of 
New York says : 

" That the adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the truth, 
a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity upon the 
free states of the Union, whose assent has been yielded to the admission into 
the Union of Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the 
faithful observance of the provision (now sought to be abrogated) known 
as the Missouri compromise, whereby slavery was declared to be " for ever 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 237 

prohibited in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, undei 
the name of Louisiana., which lies North of 36° 30' North latitude, not in- 
cluded within the limits of the State of Missouri." 

I have no comments to mako upon the courtesy and propriety exhibited 
in this legislative declaration, that a provision in a bill, reported by a regu- 
lar committee of the Senate of the United States, and known to be approved 
by three-fourths of the body, and which has since received the sanction of 
their votes, is " in derogation of truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and 
an outrage and indignity," etc. The opponents of this measure claim a mono- 
poly of all the courtesies and amenities which should be observed among 
gentlemen, and especially in the performance of official duties ; and I am free 
to say that this is one of the mildest and most respectful forms of expression 
in which they have indulged. But there is a declaration in this resolution to 
which I wish to invite the particular attention of the Senate and the country. 
It is the distinct allegation that " the free states of the Union," including New 
York, yielded their " assent to the admission into the Union of Missouri and 
Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of the pro- 
vision known as the Missouri Compromise." 

Now, sir, since the Legislature of New Tork has gone out of its way to 
arraign the state on matters of truth, I will demonstrate that this paragraph 
contains two material statements in direct " derogation of truth." I have al- 
ready shown, beyond controversy, by the records of the Legislature and by the 
Journals of the Senate, that New York never did give her assent to the ad- 
mission of Missouri with slavery ! Hence, I must be permitted to say, in the 
polite language of her own resolutions, that the statement that New York 
yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery is in " derogation 
of truth!" and secondly, the statement that such assent was given "in reli- 
ance upon the faithful observance of the Missouri compromise" is equally " in 
derogation of truth." New York never assented to the admission of Missouri 
as a slave state, never assented to what she now calls the Missouri Compro- 
mise, never observed its stipulations as a compact, never has been willing to 
carry it out ; but, on the contrary, has always resisted it, as I have demon- 
strated by her own records. 

Mr. President, I have before me other journals, records, and instructions, 
which prove that New York was not the only free state that repudiated the 
Missouri Compromise of 1820, within twelve months from its date. I will 
not occupy the time of the Senate at this late hour of the night by referring 
to them, unless some opponent of the bill renders it necessary. In that 
event, I may be able to place other senators and thoir states in the same un- 
enviable position in which the senator from New York has found himself 
and his state. 

I think I have shown, that to call the act of the 6th of March, 1820, a com- 
pact, binding in honor, is to charge the northern States of this Union with 
an act of perfidy unparalelled in the history of legislation or of civilization. I 
have already adverted to the facts, that in the summer of 1820 Missouri 
formed her Constitution, in conformity with the act of the 6th of March ; that 
it was presented to Congress at the next session ; that the Senate passed a 
joint resolution declaring her to be one of the states of the Union, on an equal 
footing with the original states ; and that the House of Representatives re- 
jected it, and refused to allow her to come into the Union, because her Con- 
stitution did not prohibit slavery. 

These facts created the necessity for a new compromise, the old one having 
failed of its object, which was to bring Missouri into the Union. At this 
period in the order of events — in February, 1821, when the excitement was 
almost beyond restraint, and a great fundamental principle, involving the right 
of the people of the new states to regulate their own domestic institutions, 



238 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

was dividing the Union into two great hostile parties — Henry Clay, of Ken- 
tucky, came forward with a new compromise, which had the effect to change 
the issue, and make the result of the controversy turn upon a different point. 
He brought in a resolution for the admission of Missouri into the Union, not 
in pursuance of the act of 1820, not in obedience to the understanding when 
it was adopted, and not with her Constitution as it had been formed in con- 
formity with that act, but he proposed to admit Missouri into the Union upon 
a " fundamental condition," which condition was to be in the nature of a 
solemn compact between the United States on the one part and the State of 
Missouri on the other part, and to which "fundamental condition" the State 
of Missouri was required to declare her assent in the form of "a solemn pub- 
he act." This joint resolution passed, and was approved March 2, 1821, and 
is known as Mr. Clay's Missouri compromise, in contradistinction to that of 1820, 
which was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. In the 
month of June, 1821, the legislature of Missouri assembled and passed the 
"solemn public act," and furnished an authenticated copy thereof to the 
President of the United States, in compliance with Mr. Clay's compromise, or 
joint resolution. On August 10, 1821, James Monroe, President of the 
United States, issued his proclamation, in which, after reciting the fact that on 
the 2d of March, 1821, Congress had passed a joint resolution " providing for 
the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union, on a certain condition;" 
and that the general assembly of Missouri, on the 26th of June, having, "by 
a solemn public act, declared the assent of said State of Missouri to the fun- 
damental condition contained in said joint resolution," and having furnished 
him with an authenticated copy thereof, he, " in pursuance of the resolution of 
Congress aforesaid,' 1 '' declared the admission of Missouri to be complete. 

I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the conditions 
upon which Missouri was admitted were wise or unwise, It is sufficient for 
my present purpose to remark, that the "fundamental condition" of her ad- 
mission related to certain clauses in the Constitution of Missouri in respect to 
the migration of free negroes into that state ; clauses similar to those now 
in force in the Constitutions of Illinois and Indiana, and perhaps other states ; 
clauses similar to the provisions of law in force at that time in many of the 
old states of the Union ; and, I will add, clauses which, in my opinion, Mis- 
souri had a right to adopt under the Constitution of the United States. It is 
no answer to this position to say, that those clauses in the Constitution of Mis- 
souri were in violation of the Constitution. If they did conflict with the Con- 
stitution of the United States, they were void ; if they were not in conflict, 
Missouri had a right to put them there, and to pass all laws necessary to 
carry them into effect. Whether such conflict did exist is a question which, 
by the Constitution, can only be determined authoritatively by the Supreme 
Court of the United States. Congress is not the appropriate and competent tribu- 
nal to adjudicate and determine questions of conflict between the Constitution 
of a state and that of the United States. Had Missouri been admitted with- 
out any condition or restriction, she would have had an opportunity of vindi- 
cating her Constitution and rights in the Supreme Court — the tribunal created 
by the Constitution for that purpose. 

By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not only deprived that 
state of a right which she believed she possessed under the Constitution of 
the United States, but denied her the privilege of vindicating that right in 
the appropriate and constitutional tribunals, by compelling her, " by a solemn 
public act," to give an irrevocable pledge never to exercise or claim the right. 
Therefore Missouri came under a humiliating condition — a condition not im- 
posed by the Constitution of the United States, and which destroys the prin- 
ciple of equality which should exist, and by the Constitution does exist, be- 
tween all the States of this Union. This inequality resulted from Mr. Clay's 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 239 

compromise of 1821, and is the principle upon which that compromise was 
constructed. I own that the act is couched in general terms and vague 
phrases, and therefore may possibly be so construed as not to deprive the 
state of any right she might possess under the Constitution. Upon that point 
I wish only to say, that such a construction makes the "fundamental condi- 
tion" void, while the opposite construction would demonstrate it to be uncon- 
stitutional. I have before me the " solemn public act" of Missouri to this 
fundamental condition. Whoever will take the trouble to read it will find it 
the richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that has ever been incorporated in- 
to a solemn public act. 

Sir, in view of these facts I desire to call the attention of the senator from 
New York to a statement in his speech, upon which the greater part of his 
argument rested. His statement was, and it is now being published in every 
abolition paper, and repeated by the whole tribe of abolition orators and lec- 
turers, that Missouri was admitted as a slaveholding state, under the act of 
1820 ; while I have shown, by the President's proclamation of August 10, 
1821, that she was admitted in pursuance of the resolution of March 2, 1821. 
Thus it is shown that the material point of his speech is contradicted by the 
highest evidence — the record in the case. The same statement, I believe, 
was made by the senator from Connecticut, (Mr. Smith,) and the senators 
from Ohio, (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade,) and the senator from Massachusetts, 
(Mr. Sumner.) Each of these senators made and repeated this statement, 
and upon the strength of this erroneous assertion called upon us to carry in- 
to effect the eighth section of the same act. This material fact upon which 
their arguments rested being overthrown, of course their conclusions are er- 
roneous and deceptive. 

Mr. Seward. I hope the senator will yield for a moment, because I have 
never had so much respect for him as I have to-night. 

Mr. Douglas. I see what course I have to pursue in order to command the 
senator's respect. I know now how to get it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Seward. Any man who meets me boldly commands my respect. I say 
that Missouri would not have been admitted at all into the Union by the 
United States except upon the compromise of 1820. When that point was 
settled about the restriction of slavery, it was settled in this way : that she 
should come in with slavery, and that all the rest of the Louisiana purchase, 
which is now known as Nebraska, should be forever free from slavery. Mis- 
souri adopted a Constitution, which was thought by the northern states to in- 
fringe upon the right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the 
United States, which was a new point altogether ; and upon that point debate 
was held, and upon it a new compromise was made, and Missouri came into 
the Union upon the agreement that, in regard to that question, she submitted 
to the Constitution of the United States, and so she was admitted into the 
Union. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I must remind the senator again that I have 
already proven that he was in error in stating that the North objected to the 
admission of Missouri merely on account of the free-negro clause in her Con- 
stitution. I have proven by the vote that the North objected to her admis- 
sion because she tolerated slavery ; this objection was sustained by the North 
by a vote of nearly two to one. He cannot shelter himself, therefore, under 
the free-negro dodge, so long as there is a distinct vote of the North objecting 
to her admission; because, in addition to complying with the act of 1820, she 
did not also prohibit slavery, which was the only consideration that the South 
was to have for agreeing to the prohibition of slavery in the territories. Then, 
having deprived the senator, by conclusive evidence from the records, of that 
pretext, what do I drive him to ? I compel him to acknowledge that a new 
compromise was made. 



240 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Mr. Seward. Certainly there was. 

Mr. Douglas. Then, I ask, why was *it made ? Because the North would 
not carry out the first one. And the best evidence that the North did not 
carry out the first one is the senator's admission that the South was compel- 
led to submit to a new one. Then, if there was a new compromise made, did 
Missouri come in under the new one or the old one ? 

Mr. Seward. Under both. 

Mr. Douglas. This is the first time, in this debate, it has been intimated 
that Missouri came in under two acts of Congress. The senator did not allude 
to the resolution of 1821 in his speech; none of the opponents of this bill have 
said it. But it is now admitted that she did not come into the Union under 
the act of 1820 alone. She had been voted out under the first compromise, 
and this vote compelled her to make a new one, and she came in under the 
new one ; and yet the senator from New York, in his speech, declared to the 
world that she came in under the first one. This is not an immaterial ques- 
tion. His whole speech rests upon that misapprehension or misstatement of 
the record. 

Mr. Seward. Tou had better say misapprehension. 

Mr. Douglas. Very well. We will call it by that name. His whole argu- 
ment depends upon that misapprehension. After stating that the act of 1820 
was a compact, and that the North performed its part of it in good faith, he 
arraigns the friends of this bill for proposing to annul the eighth section of the 
act of 1820 without first turning Missouri out of the Union, in order that 
slavery may be abolished therein by the act of Congress. He says to us, in 
substance: "G-entlemen, if you are going to rescind the compact, have respect 
for that great law of morals, of honesty, and of conscience, which compels you 
first to surrender the consideration which which you have received ' under the 
compact.' " I concur with him in regard to the obligation to restore the con- 
sideration when a contract is rescinded. And, inasmuch as the prohibition in 
the territories North of 36° 30' was obtained, according to his own statement, 
by an agreement to admit Missouri as a slaveholding state on an equal footing 
with the original states, "in all respects whatsoever," as specified in the first 
section of the act of 1820 ; and, inasmuch as Missouri was refused admission 
under said act, and was compelled to submit to a new compromise in 1821, 
and was then received into the Union on a fundamental condition of inequali- 
ty, I call on him and his abolition confederates to restore the consideration 
which they have received, in the shape of a prohibition of slavery North of 
36° 30', under a compromise which they repudiated, and refused to carry into 
effect. I call on them to correct the erroneous statement in respect to the 
admission of Missouri, and to make a restitution of the consideration by voting 
for this bill. I repeat that this is not an immaterial statement. It is the 
point upon which the abolitionists rest their whole argument. They could 
not get up a show of pretext against the great principles of self-government 
involved in this bill, if they could not repeat all the time, as the senator from 
New York did in his speech, that Missouri came into the Union with slavery, 
in conformity to the compact which was made by the act of 1820, and that 
the South, having received the consideration, is now trying to cheat the 
North out of her part of the benefits. I have proven that, after abolitionism 
had gained its point so far as the eighth section of the act prohibited slavery 
in the territory, Missouri was denied admission by Northern votes until she 
entered into a compact by which she was understood to surrender an impor- 
tant right now exercised by several states of the Union. 

Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. I did not under- 
stand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my first speech on 
this subject ; and, so far as I was familiar with them, I made as little refer- 
ence to them as was consistent with my duty ; because it was a mortifying 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 241 

reflection to me, as a northern man, that we had not been able, in consequence 
of the abolition excitement at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith 
in the observance of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise. 
There were a few men then, as there are now, who had the moral courage to 
perform their duty to the country and the Constitution, regardless of conse- 
quences personal to themselves. There were ten northern men who dared to 
perform their duty by voting to admit Missouri into the Union an an equal 
footing with the original states, and with no other restriction than that im- 
posed by the Constitution. I am aware that they were abused and denounc- 
ed as we are now ; that they were branded as dough-faces, traitors to freedom, 
and to the section of the country whence they come. 

Mr. Geyer. They honored Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, by burning him 
in effigy. 

Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir ; these Abolitionists honored Mr. Lanman in Connec- 
ticut just as they are honoring me in Boston, and other places, by burning me 
in emgy. 

Mr. Cass. It will do you no harm. 

Mr. Douglas. Well, sir, I know it will not;' but why this burning in 
eSigy ? It is the legimate consequences of the address which was sent forth 
to the world by certain senators whom I denominated, on a former occasion, 
as the abolition confederates. The senator from Ohio presented here the other 
day a resolution — he says unintentionally, and I take it so — declaring that 
every senator who advocated this bill was a traitor to his country, to human- 
ity, and to God ; and even he seemed to be shocked at the results of his own 
advice when it was exposed. Yet he did not seem to know that it was, in 
substance, what he had advised in his address, over his own signature, when 
he called upon the people to assemble in public meetings and thunder forth 
their indignation at the criminal betrayal of precious rights; when he appealed 
to ministers of the gospel to desecrate their holy calling, and attempted to in- 
flame passions, and fanaticism, and prejudice against senators who would not 
consider themselves very highly complimented by being called his equals ? 
And yet, when the natural consequences of his own action and advice come 
back upon him, and he presents them here, and is called to an account for the 
indecency of the act, he professes his profound regret and surprise that any- 
thing should have occurred which could possibly be deemed unkind or dis- 
respectful to any member of this body ! 

Mr. Sumner. I rise merely to correct the senator in a statement in re- 
gard to myself, to the effect that I had said that Missouri came into the Union 
under the act of 1820, instead of the act of 1821. I forbore to designate any 
particular act under which Missouri came into the Union, but simply asserted, 
as the result of the long controversy with regard to her admission, and as the 
end of the whole transaction, that she was received as a slave State ; and that 
on being so received, whether sooner or later, whether under the act of 1820 
or 1821, the obligations of the compact were fixed — irrevocably fixed — so far 
as the South is concerned. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator's explanation does not help him at all. He 
says he did not state under what act Missouri came in ; but he did say, as I 
understood him, that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that, according to 
that compact, Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided slavery should 
be prohibited in certain territories, and did come in in pursuance of the com- 
pact. He now uses the word "compact." To what compact does he allude? 
Is it not to the act of 1820? If he did not, what becomes of his conclusion 
that the eighth section of that act is irrepealable ? He will not venture to 
deny that his reference was to the act of 1820. Did he refer to the joint re- 
solution of 1821, under which Missouri was admitted? If so, we do not pro- 
pose to repeal it. We admit that it was a compact, and that its obligations 

L 



242 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

are irrevocably fixed. But that joint resolution does not prohibit slavery in 
the territories. The Nebraska Bill does not propose to repeal it, or impair its 
obligation in any way. Then, sir, why not take back your correction, and 
admit that you did mean the act of 1820, when you spoke of irrevocable ob- 
ligations and compacts ? Assuming, then, that the senator meant what he is 
now unwilling either to admit or deny, even while professing to correct me, 
that Missouri came in under the act of 1820, I aver that I have proven that 
she did not come into the Union under that act. I have proven that she was 
refused admission under that alleged compact. I have, therefore, proven in- 
contestably that the material statement upon which bis argument rests is 
wholly without foundation, and unequivocally contradicted by the record. 

Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech which has been made 
against the bill, upon the ground that it impaired the obligation of compacts. 
There has not been an argument against the measure, every word of which 
in regard to the faith of compacts is not contradicted by the public records. 
What I complain of is this : The people may think that a senator, having the 
laws and journals before him, to which he could refer, would not make a 
statement in contravention of those records. They make the people believe 
these things, and cause them to do great injustice to others, under the delu- 
sion that they have been wronged, and their feelings outraged. Sir, this ad- 
dress did for a time mislead the whole country. It made the Legislature of 
New York believe that the act of 1820 was a compact which it would be dis- 
graceful to violate ; and, acting under that delusion, they framed a series of 
resolutions, which, if true and just, convict that State of an act of perfidy and 
treachery unparalleled in the history of free governments. You see, there- 
fore, the consequences of these misstatements. You degrade your own State, 
and induce the people, under the impression that they have been injured, to get 
up a violent crusade against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will in the end 
command their respect and admiration. In consequence of arousing passions 
and prejudices, I am now to be found in effigy, hanging by the neck, in all 
the towns where you have the influence to produce such a result. In all 
these excesses, the people are yielding to an honest impulse, under the im- 
pression that a grievous wrong has been perpetrated. You have had your 
day of triumph. You have succeeded in directing upon the heads of others 
a torrent of insult and calumny from which even you shrink with horror, when 
the fact is exposed that you have become the conduits for conveying it into 
this hall. In your State, sir, [addressing himself to Mr. Chase,] I find that I 
am burnt in effigy in your abolition towns. All this is done because I hare 
proposed, as it is said, to violate a compact ! Now, what will those people 
think of you when they find out that you have stimulated them to those acts, 
which are disgraceful to your State, disgraceful to your party, and disgraceful 
to your cause, under a misrepresentation of the facts, which misrepresentation 
you ought to have been aware of, and should never have been made ? 

Mr. Chase. "Will the senator from Illinois permit me to say a few words ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 

Mr. Chase. Mr. President, I certainly regret that any thing has occurred 
in my state which should be otherwise than in accordance with the disposition 
which I trust I have ever manifested to treat the senator from Illinois with 
entire courtesy. I do not wish, however, to be understood here, or else- 
where, as retracting any statement which I have made, or being unwilling to 
reassert that statement when it is directly impeached. I regard the admission 
of Missouri, and the facts of the transaction connected with it, as constituting 
a compact between the two sections of the country, a part of which was ful- 
filled ia the admission of Missouri, another part in the admission of Arkansas, 
and other parts of which have been fulfilled in the admission of Iowa, and the 
organization of Minnesota, but which yet remains to be fulfilled in respect to 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 243 

the Territory of Nebraska, and which, in my judgment, will be violated by the 
repeal of the Missouri prohibition. That is my judgment. I have no quarrel 
with senators who differ with me ; but upon the whole facts of the transac- 
tion, however, I have not changed my opinion at all, in consequence of what 
has been said by the honorable senator from Illinois. I say that the fact of 
the transaction, taken together, and as understood by the country for more 
than thirty years, constitute a compact binding in moral force ; though, as I 
have always said, being embodied in a legislative act, it may be repealed by 
Congress, if Congress see fit. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I am sorry the senator from Ohio has re- 
peated the statement that Missouri came in under the compact which he says 
was made by the act of 1820. How many times have I to disprove the 
statement ? Does not the vote to which I have referred show that such was 
not the case ? Does not the fact that there was a necessity for a new com- 
promise show it ? Have I not proved it three times over ? and is it possible 
that the senator from Ohio will repeat it in the face of the record, with the 
vote staring him in the face, and with the evidence which I have produced ? 
Does he suppose that he can make his own people believe that his statement 
ought to be credited in opposition to the solemn record ? I am amazed that 
the senator should repeat the statement again unsustained by the fact, by the 
record, and by the evidence, and overwhelmed by the whole current and 
weight of the testimony which I have produced. 

The senator says, also, that he never intended to do me injustice, and he is 
sorry that the people of his state have acted in the manner to which I have 
referred. Sir, did he not say, in the same document to which I have already 
alluded, that I was engaged, with others, in " a criminal betrayal of precious 
rights," in an " atrocious plot ?" Djd he not say that I and others were guilty 
of "meditated bad faith?" Are not these his exact words? Did he not say 
that " servile demagogues" might make the people believe certain things, or 
attempt to do so ? Did he not say every thing calculated to produce and 
bring upon my head all the insults to which I have been subjected, publicly 
and privately — not even excepting the insulting letters which I have received 
from his constituents, rejoicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying 
that other and similar calamites may befall me ? All these have resulted from 
that address. I expected such consequences when I first saw it. In it he 
called upon the preachers of the gospel to prostitute the sacred desk in stim- 
ulating excesses ; and then, for fear that the people would not know who it 
was that was to be insulted and calumniated, he told them in a postscript, that 
Mr. Douglas was the author of all this iniquity, and that they ought not to 
allow their rights to be made the hazard of a presidential game ! After having 
used such language, he says he meant no disrespect — he meant nothing un- 
kind ! He was amazed that I said in my opening speech that there was any 
thing offensive in this address ; and he could not suffer himself to use harsh 
epithets, or to impugn a gentleman's motives! No, not hel After having 
deliberately written all these insults, impugning motive and character, and 
calling upon our holy religion to sanctify the calumny, he could not think of 
losing his dignity by bandying epithets, or using harsh and disrespectful 
terms ! 

Mr. President, I expected all that has occurred, and more than has come, 
as the legitimate result of that address. The things to which I referred are 
the natural consequences of it. The only revenge I seek is to expose the 
authors, and leave them to bear, as best they may, the just indignation of an 
honest community, when the people discover how their sympathies and feel- 
ings have been outraged, by making them the instruments in performing such 
desperate acts. 

Sir, even in Boston I have been hung in effigy. I may say that I expected 



244 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

it to occur even there, for the senator from Massachusetts lives there. He 
signed his name to that address; and for fear the Boston abolitionists would 
not know that it was he, he signed it " Charles Sumner, senator from Massachu- 
setts." The first outrage was in Ohio, where the address was circulated 
under the signature of " Salmon P. Chase, senator from Ohio." The next came 
from Boston — the same Boston, sir, which, under the direction of the same 
leaders, closed Fanueil Hall to the immortal Webster in 1850, because of his 
support of the compromise measures of that year, which all now confess have 
restored peace and harmony to a distracted country. Yes, sir, even Boston, 
so glorious in her early history — Boston, around whose name so many histor- 
ical associations cling, to gratify the heart and exalt the pride of every Ameri- 
can — could be led astray by abolition misrepresentations so far as to deny a 
hearing to her own great man, who had shed so much glory upon Massachu- 
setts and her metropolis ! I know that Boston now feels humiliated and 
degraded by the act. And sir, (addressing himself to Mr. Sumner), you will 
remember that when you came into the Senate, and sought an opportunity to 
put forth your abolition incendiarism, you appealed to our sense of justice by 
the sentiment, " Strike, but hear me first." But when Mr. Webster went 
back in 1850 to speak to his constituents in his own self-defense, to tell the 
truth, and to expose his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you struck 
first! 

Again, sir, even Boston, with her Fanueil Hall consecrated to liberty, 
was so far led astray by abolitionism that when one of her gallant sons, gal- 
lant by his own glorious deeds, inheriting a heroic revolutionary name, had 
given his life to his country upon the bloody field of Buena Vista, and when 
his remains were brought home, even that Boston, under abolition guidance 
and abolition preaching, denied him a decent burial, because he lost his life in 
vindicating his country's honor upon the southern frontier ! Even the name 
of Lincoln and the deeds of Lincoln could not secure for him a decent inter- 
ment, because abolitionism follows a patriot beyond the grave. (Applause in 
the galleries.) 

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Mason in the chair.) Order must be pre- 
served. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, with these facts before me, how could I 
hope to escape the fate which had followed these great and good men ? 
While I had no right to hope that I might be honored as they had been 
under abolition auspices, have I not a right to be proud of the distinction and 
the association ? Mr. President, I regret these digressions. I have not been 
able to follow the line of argument which I had marked out for myself, be- 
cause of the many interruptions. I do not complain of them. It is fair that 
gentlemen should make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity of 
replying ; hence I have yielded the floor, and propose to do so cheerfully 
whenever any senator intimates that justice to him or his position requires 
him to say anything in reply. 

Returning to the point from which I was diverted. 

I think I have shown that if the act of 1826, called the Missouri compro- 
mise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a solemn vote of the 
House of Representatives in 1821, within eleven months after it was adopted. 
It was repudiated by the North by a majority vote, and that repudiation was 
so complete and successful as to compel Missouri to make a new compro- 
mise, and she was brought into the Union under the new compromise of 
1821, and not under the act of 1820. This reminds me of another point 
made in nearly all the speeches against this bill, and, if I recollect right, was 
alluded to in the abolition manifesto ; to which, I regret to say, I had occa- 
sion to refer so often. I refer to the significant hint that Mr. Clay was dead 
before any one dared to bring forward a proposition to undo the greatest 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 245 

-work of his bands. The senator from New Tork (Mr. Seward) has seized 
upon this insinuation, and elaborated it, perhaps, more fully than his com- 
peers ; and now the abolition press suddenly, and, as if by miraculous con- 
version, teems with eulogies upon Mr. Clay and his Missouri compromise of 
1820. 

Now, Mr. President, does not each of these senators know that Mr. Clay 
was not the author of the act of 1820 ? Do they not know that he disclaimed 
it in 1850 in this body ? Do they not know that the Missouri restriction did 
not originate in the house, of which he was a member ? Do they not know 
that Mr. Clay never came into the Missouri controversy as a compromiser un- 
til after the compromise of 1820 was repudiated, and it became necessary to 
make another ? I dislike to be compelled to repeat what I have conclusively 
proven, that the compromise which Mr. Clay effected was the act of 1821, 
under which Missouri came into the Union, and not the act of 1820. Mr. 
Clay made that compromise after you had repudiated the first one. How, 
then, dare you call upon the spirit of that great and gallant statesman to 
sanction your charge of bad faith against the South on this question ? 

Mr. Seward. Will the senator allow me a moment ? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 

Mr. Seward. In the year 1851 or 1852, I think 1851, a medal was 
struck in honor of Henry Clay, of gold, which cost a large sum of money, 
which contained eleven acts of the life of Henry Clay. It was presented to 
him by a committee of citizens of New York, by whom it had been made. 
One of the eleven acts of his life which was celebrated on that medal, which 
he accepted, was the Missouri compromise of 1820. This is my answer. 

Mr. Douglas. Are the words 'of 1820' upon it? 

Mr. Seward. It commemorates the Missouri compromise. 

Mr. Douglas. Exactly. I have seen that medal ; and my recollection is 
that it does not contain the words ' of 1820.' One of the great acts of Mr. 
Clay was the Missouri compromise, but what Missouri compromise? Of 
course the one which Henry Clay made, the one which he negotiated, the one 
which brought Missouri into the Union, and which settled the controversy. 
That was the act of 1821, and not the act of 1820. It tends to confirm the 
statement which I have made. History is misread and misquoted, and these 
statements have been circulated and disseminated broadcast through the 
country, concealing the truth. Does not the senator know that Henry Clay, 
when occupying that seat in 1850, (pointing to Mr. Clay's chair,) in his 
speech of the 6th of February of that year, said that nothing had struck him 
with so much surprise as the fact that historical circumstances soon passed 
out of recollection; and he instanced, as a case in point, the error of attribut- 
ing to him the act of 1820. (Mr. Seward nodded assent.) The senator from 
New York says that he. does remember that Mr. Clay did say so. If so, how 
is it, then, that he presumes now to rise and quote that medal as evidence 
that Henry Clay was the author of the act of 1820 ? 

Mr. Seward. I answer the senator in this way : that Henry Clay, while 
he said he did not disavow or disapprove of that compromise, transferred the 
merit of it to others who were more active in procuring it than he, while he 
had enjoyed the praise and the glory which were due from it. 

Mr. Douglas. To that I have only to say that it can not be the reason ; for 
Henry Clay, in that same speech, did take to himself the merit of the Com- 
promise of 1821, and hence it could not have been modesty which made him 
disavow the other. He said that he did not know whether he had voted for 
the act of 1820 or not ; but he supposed that he had done so. He further- 
more said that it did not originate in the House of which he was a member, 
and that he never did approve of its principles ; but that he may have voted, 
and probably did vote for it, under the pressure of the circumstances. 



246 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to Mr. Clay on this ques- 
tion, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great man, who was asso- 
ciated with him in carrying through the great measures of 1850, which 
mortified the senator from New York so much, because they defeated his 
purpose of carrying on the agitation. I allude to Mr. Webster. The au- 
thority of his great name has been quoted for the purpose of proving that 
he regarded the Missouri act as a compact — an irrepealable compact. Evi- 
dently the distinguished senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Everett] supposed 
he was doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the passage which 
he read from Mr. Webster's speech of the 7th of March, 1850, when he said 
that he stood upon the position that every part of the American continent 
was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepealable law. 

The senator says that by the expression " irrepealable law," Mr. Webster 
meant to include the Compromise of 1820. Now, I will show that that was 
not Mr. Webster's meaning — that he was never guilty of the mistake of 
saying that the Missouri act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. Mr. Webster 
said in that speech, that every foot of territory in the United States was 
fixed as to its character for freedom or slavery by an irrepealable law. He 
then inquired if it was not so in regard to Texas. He went on to prove 
that it was ; because, he said, there was a compact in express terms between 
Texas and the United States. He said the parties were capable of con- 
tracting, and that there was a valuable consideration; and hence, he con- 
tended, that in that case there was a contract binding in honor, and morals, 
and law ; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of faith. 

He went on to say : 

" Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded 
from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanc- 
tions it in Texas — I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law 
of the formation of the earth." 

That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in the 
territories of Utah and New Mexico. He next went on to speak of the pro- 
hibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an " entirely useless, and 
in that connection, senseless proviso." 

He went further, and said : 

"That the whole territory of the states in the United States, or in the 
newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled char- 
acter, now fixed and settled by law, which can not be repealed in the case 
of Texas without a violation of public faith, and can not be repealed by any 
human power in regard to California or New Mexico ; that, under one or 
other of these laws, every foot of territory in the states, or in the territories, 
has now received a fixed and decided character." 

What irrepealable laws? "One or the other" of those which he had 
stated. One was the Texas compact, the other the law of nature and phys- 
ical geography ; and he contends that one or the other fixed the character 
of the whole American continent for freedom or for slavery. He never al- 
luded to the Missouri Compromise, unless it was by the allusion to the 
Wilmot proviso in the Oregon bill, and there he said it was a useless, and, in 
that connection, senseless thing. Why was it a useless and a senseless 
thing ? Because it was reenacting the law of God ; because slavery had 
already been prohibited by physical geography. Sir, that was the meaning 
of Mr. Webster's speech. My distinguished friend from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Everett], when he reads the speech again, will be utterly amazed to 
see how he fell into such an egregious error as to suppose that Mr. Webster 
had so far fallen from his high position as to say that the Missouri act of 
1820 was an irrepealable law. 

Mr. Everett. Will the gentleman give way for a moment ? 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 247 

Mr. Douglas. With great pleasure. 

Mr. Everett. "What I said on that subject was, that Mr. Webster, in my 
opinion, considered the Missouri Compromise as of the nature of a compact. 
It is true, as the senator from Illinois has just stated, that Mr. Webster 
made no allusion, in express terms, to the subject of the Missouri restriction. 
But I thought then, and I think now, that he referred in general terms to 
that as a final settlement of the question, in the region to which it applied. 
It was not drawn in question then on either side of the House. Nobody 
suggested that it was at stake. Nobody intimated that there was a question 
before the Senate whether that restriction should be repealed or should re- 
main in force. It was not distinctly, and in terms, alluded to, as the gentle- 
man correctly says, by Mr. Webster or anybody else. What he said in 
reference to Texas, applied to Texas alone. What he said in reference to 
Utah and New Mexico, applied to them alone ; and what he said with regard 
to Oregon, to that territory alone. But he stated in general terms, and four 
or five times, in the speech of the 7th of March, 1850, that there was not a 
foot of land in the United States or its territories the character of which, for 
freedom or slavery, was not fixed by some irrepealable law ; and I did think 
then, and I think now, that by the "irrepealable law," as far as concerned 
the territory North of 36° 30', and included in the Louisiana purchase, Mr. 
Webster had reference to the Missouri restriction, as regarded as of the 
nature of a compact. That restriction was copied from one of the pro- 
visions of the ordinance of 1187, which are declared in that instrument 
itself to be articles of compact. The Missouri restriction is the article of the 
ordinance of 1787 applied to the Louisiana purchase. That this is the cor- 
rect interpretation of Mr. Webster's language, is confirmed by the fact that 
he said, more than once, and over again, that all the North lost by the ar- 
rangement of 1850, was the non-imposition of the Wilmot proviso upon 
Utah and New Mexico. If, in addition to that, the North had lost th a Mis- 
souri restriction over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could he have 
used language of that kind, and would he not have attemptod, in some way 
or other, to reconcile such a momentous fact with his repeated statements 
that the measures of 1850 applied only to the territories newly acquired 
from Mexico ? 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I will explain that matter very quickly. Mr. 
Webster's speech was made on the 7th of March, 1850, and the territorial 
bills and the Texas Boundary Bill were first reported to the Senate by my- 
self on the 25th of the same month. Mr. Webster's speech was made upon 
Mr. Clay's resolution, when there was no bill pending. Then the Omnibus 
Bill was formed about the 1st of May subsequently ; and hence this explains 
the reason why Mr. Webster did not refer to the principle involved in these 
acts, and to the necessary effect of carrying out the principle. 

Mr. Everett. The expression of Mr. Webster, which I quoted in my re- 
marks on the 8th of February, was from a speech on Mr. Soule's amendment, 
offered, I think, in June. In addition to this, I have before me an extract 
from a still later speech of Mr. Webster, made quite late in the session, on 
the 17th of July, 1850, in which he reiterated that- statement. In it he said : 

" And now, sir, what do Massachusetts and the North, the anti-slavery 
states, lose by this adjustment ? What is it they lose ? I put that question 
to every gentleman here, and to every gentleman in the country. They lose 
the application of what is called the ' Wilmot Proviso' to these territories, 
and that is all. There is nothing else, I suppose, that the whole North are 
not ready to do. They wish to get California into the Union ; they wish to 
quiet New Mexico ; they desire to terminate the dispute about the Texan 
boundary in any reasonable manner, cost what it reasonably may. They 
make no sacrifice in all that. What they do sacrifice is exactly this : The 



248 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

application of the ' Wilmot Proviso' to the territory of New Mexico and the 
territory of Utah, and that is all." 

Could Mr. Webster have used language like that if he had understood that, 
at the same time, the non-slaveholding states were losing the Missouri re- 
striction, as applied to the whole vast territory included in the bills now be- 
fore the Senate ? 

Mr. Douglas. Of course that was all, and if he regarded the Missouri 
prohibition in the same light as he did the Oregon prohibition, it was a use- 
less, and, in that connectioD, a senseless proviso ; and hence the North lost 
nothing by not having that same senseless, useless proviso applied to Utah 
and New Mexico. Now, to show the senator that he must be mistaken as 
to Mr. "Webster's authority, let me call his attention back to this passage in 
his 7 th of March speech : 

" Under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the states or 
territories has now received a fixed and decided character." 

What laws did he refer to when he spoke of " one or other of these laws ?" 
He had named but two, the Texas compact, and the law of nature, of cli- 
mate, and physical geography, which excluded slavery. He had mentioned 
none other ; and yet he says " one or other" prohibited slavery in all the 
states or territories — thus including Nebraska, as well as Utah and New 
Mexico. 

Mr. Everett. That was not drawn in question at all. 

Mr. Douglas. Then, if it was not drawn in question, the speech should 
not have been quoted in support of the Missouri Compromise. It is just 
what I complain of, that, if it was not thus drawn in question, that use ought 
not to have been made of it. Now, Mr. President, it is well known that Mr. 
Webster supported the Compromise measures of 1850, and the principle in- 
volved in them, of leaving the people to do as they pleased upon this sub- 
ject. I think, therefore, that I have shown that these gentlemen are not 
authorized to qiiote the name either of Mr. Webster or Mr. Clay in support 
of the position which they take, that this bill violates the faith of compacts. 
Sir, it was because Mr. Webster went for giving the people in the territories 
the right to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, and because he 
was in favor of carrying out the Constitution in regard to fugitive slaves, that 
he was not allowed to speak in Faneuil Hall. 

Mr. Everett. That was not my fault. 

Mr. Douglas. I know it was not ; but I say it was because he took that 
position ; it was because he did not go for a prohibitory policy ; it was be- 
cause he advocated the same principles which I now advocate, because he 
went for the same provisions in the Utah Bill which I now sustain in this 
bill, that Boston abolitionists turned their back upon him, just as they burnt 
me in effigy. Sir, if identity of principle, if identity of support as friends, if 
identity of enemies fix Mr. Webster's position, his authority is certainly with 
us, and not with the abolitionists. I have a right, therefore, to have the 
sympathies of his Boston friends with me, as I sympathized with him when 
the same principle was involved. 

Mr. President, I am sorry that I have taken up so much time ; but I must 
notice one or two points more. So much has been said about the Missouri 
Compromise Act, and about a faithful compliance with it by the North, that 
I must follow that matter a little further. The senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Wade) has referred, to-night, to the fact that I went for carrying out the 
Missouri Compromise in the Texas resolutions of 1845, and in 1848, on sev- 
eral occasions ; and he actually proved that I never abandoned it until 1850. 
He need not have taken the pains to prove that fact ; for he got all his in- 
formation on the subject from my opening speech upon this bill. I told you 
then that I was willing, as a Northern man, in 1845, when the Texas ques- 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 249 



arose, to carry the Missouri Compromise line through that state, and in 
I I offered it as an amendment to the Oregon Bill. Although I did not 



tion 
1848 

like the principle involved in that act, yet I was willing, for the sake of har- 
mony, to extend it to the Pacific, and abide by it in good faith, in order to 
avoid the slavery agitation. The Missouri Compromise was defeated then by 
the same class of politicians who are now combined in opposition to the Ne- 
braska Bill. It was because we were unable to carry out that Compromise, 
that a necessity existed for making a new one in 1850. And then we es- 
tablished this great principle of self-government which lies at the foundation 
of all our institutions. What does his charge amount to ? He charges it, as 
a matter of offense, that I struggled in 1845 and in 1848 to observe good 
faith ; and he and his associates defeated my purpose, and deprived me_ of 
the ability to carry out what he now says is the plighted faith of the nation. 

Mr. Wade. I did not charge the senator with any thing except with 
making a very excellent argument on my side of the question, and I wished 
he would make it again to-night. That was all. 

Mr. Douglas. What was the argument which I made ? A Southern senator 
had complained that the Missouri Compromise was a matter of injustice to the 
South. I told him he ought not to complain of that when his Southern 
friends were here proposing to accept it; and if we could carry it out, he 
had no right to make such a complaint. I was anxious to carry it out. It 
would not have done for a northern man who was opposed to the measure, 
and unwilling to abide it, to take that position. It would not have become 
the senator from Ohio, who then denounced the very measure which he now 
calls a sacred compact, to take that position. But, as one who always been 
in favor of carrying it out, it was legitimate and proper that I should make 
that argument in reply. 

Sir, as I have said, the South were willing to agree to the Missouri Com- 
promise in 1848. When it was proposed by me to the Oregon Bill, as an 
amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the South agreed to it. The 
Senate adopted that proposition, and the house voted it down. In 1850, 
after the Omnibus Bill had broken down, and we proceeded to pass the 
Compromise measures separately, ± proposed, when the Utah Bill was under 
discussion, to make a slight variation of the boundary of that territory, so as 
to include the Mormon settlements, and not with reference to any other 
question ; and it was suggested that we should take the line of 36° 30'. 
That would have accomplished the local objects of the amendment very 
well. But when I proposed it, what did these Preesoilers say ? What did 
the senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Hale), who was then their leader in 
this body, say ? Here are his words : 

" Mr. Hale. I wish to say a word as a reason why I shall vote against 
the amendment. I shall vote against 36° 30° because I think there is an im- 
plication in it. [Laughter.] I will vote for 31° or 36° either, just as it is 
convenient ; but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here is an attempt 
in this bill— I will not say it is the intention of the mover— to pledge this 
Senate and Congress to the imaginary line of- 36° 30', because there are 
some historical recollections connected with it in regard to this controversy about 
slavery, I will content myself with saying that I never will, by vote or speech, 
admit or submit to any thing that may bind the action of our legislation here to 
make the parallel o/36° 30' the boundary line between slave and free territory. 
An& when I say that, I explain the reason why I go against the amend- 
ment." 

These remarks of Mr. Hale were not made on a proposition to extend the 
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but on a proposition to fix 36° 30' 
as the Southern boundary line of Utah, for local reasons. He was against it 
because there might be, as he said, an implication growing out of historical 

L2 



250 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

recollections in favor of the imaginary line between slavery and freedom. 
Does that look as if his object was to get an implication in favor of preserv- 
ing sacred this line, in regard to which gentlemen now say there was a sol- 
emn compact ? That proposition may illustrate what I wish to say in this 
connexion upon a point which has been made by the opponents of this bill 
as to the effect of an amendment inserted on the motion of the senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Mason) into the Texas boundary bill. The opponents of this 
measure rely upon that amendment to show that the Texas compact was 
preserved by the acts of 1850. I have already shown, in my former speech, 
that the object of the amendment was to guaranty to the state of Texas, 
with her circumscribed boundaries, the same number of states which she 
would have had under her larger boundaries, and with the same right to 
come in with or without slavery, as they please. 

We have been told over and over again that there was no such thing in- 
timated in debate as that the country cut off from Texas was to be relieved 
from the stipulation of that compromise. This has been asserted boldly and 
unconditionally, as if there could be no doubt about it. The senator from 
Georgia (Mr. Toombs) in his speech, showed that, in his address to his con- 
stituents of that state, he had proclaimed to the world that the object was to 
establish a principle which would allow the people to decide the question of 
slavery for themselves, North as well as South of 36° 30'. The line of 36° 
30' was voted down as the boundary of Utah, so that there should not be 
even an implication in favor of an imaginary line to divide freedom and slav- 
ery. Subsequently, when the Texas Boundary Bill was under consideration, 
on the next day after the amendment of the senator from Virginia had been 
adopted, the record says : 

" Mr. Sebastian moved to add to the second article the following : 

" ' On the condition that the territory hereby ceded may be, at the proper 
time, formed into a state, and admitted into the Union, with a Constitution 
with or without the prohibition of slavery therein, as the people of the said 
territory may at the time determine.' " 

Then the senator from Arkansas did propose that the territory cut off 
should be relieved from that restriction in express terms, and allowed to 
come in according to the principles of this bill. What was done ? The de- 
bate continued : 

" Mr. Foote. Will my friend allow me to appeal to him to move this 
amendment when the territorial bill for New Mexico shall be up for consid- 
eration ? It will certainly be a part of that bill, and I shall then vote for it 
with pleasure. Now it will only embarrass our action." 

Let it be remarked that no one denied the propriety of the provision. All 
seemed to acquiesce in the principle ; but it was thought better to insert it 
in the territorial bills, as we are now doing, instead of adding it to the Texas 
Boundary Bill. The debate proceeded : 

" Mr. Sebastian. My only object in offering the amendment is to secure 
the assertion of this principle beyond a doubt. The principle was acqui- 
esced in without difficulty in regard to the territorial government established 
for Utah, a part of this acquired territory, and it is proper, in my opinion, 
that it should be incorporated in this bill. 

"Messrs. Cass, Foote, and others. Oh, withdraw it. 

"Mr. Sebastian. I think this is the proper place for it. It is uncertain 
whether it will be incorporated in the other bill referred to, and the bill itself 
may not pass." 

It will be seen that the debate goes upon the supposition that the effect 
was to release the country North of 36° 30' from the obligation of the prohibi- 
tion; and the only question was whether the declaration that it should be 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 251 

received into the Union " with or without slavery" should be inserted in the 
Texas bill or the territorial bill. 

The debate was continued, and I will read one or two other passages : 

"Mr. Fooie. I wish to state to the senator a fact of which, I think, he is not 
observant at this moment ; and that is, that the senator from Virginia has in- 
troduced an amendment, which is now a part of the bill, which recognizes the 
Texas compact of annexation in every respect. 

"Mr. Sebastian. I was aware of the effect of the amendment of the senator 
from Virginia. • It is in regard to the number of states to be formed out of 
Texas, and is referred to only in general terms." 

Thus it will be seen that the senator from Arkansas then explained the 
amendment of the senator from Virginia, which had been adopted, in precisely 
the same way in which I explained it in my opening speech. The senator 
from Arkansas continued: 

"If this amendment be the same as that offered by the senator from Vir- 
ginia, there can certainly be no harm in reaffirming it in this bill, to which I 
think it properly belongs." 

Thus it will be seen that nobody disputed that the restriction was to be re- 
moved ; and the only question was as to the bill in which that declaration 
would be put. It seems, from the record, that I took part in the debate, and 
said: 

"Mr. Douglas. This boundary, as now fixed, would leave New Mexico 
bounded on the east by the 103° of longitude up to 36° 30', and then east to 
the 100°; and it leaves a narrow neck of land between 36° 30' and the old 
boundary of Texas, that would not naturally and properly go to New Mexico 
when it should become a state. This amendment would compel us to include 
it in New Mexico, or to form it into another state. ~W hen the principle shall 
come up in the bill for the organization of a territorial government for New 
Mexico, no doubt the same vote which inserted it in the Omnibus Bill and the 
Utah bill, will insert it there. 

" Several Senators. No doubt of it." 

Upon that debate the amendment of the senator from Arkansas was voted 
down, because it was avowed and distinctly understood that the amendment 
of the senator from Virginia, taken in connection with the remainder of the 
bill, did release the country ceded by Texas North of 36° 30' from the restric- 
tion ; and it was agreed that if we did not put it into the Texas boundary bill 
it should go into the territorial bill. I stated, as a reason why it should not 
go into the Texas boundary bill, that if it did it would be a compact, and 
would compel us to put the whole ceded country into one state, when it 
might be more convenient and natural to make a different boundary. I 
pledged myself then that it should be put into the territorial bill ; and when 
we considered the territorial bill for New Mexico we put in the same clause, 
so far as the country ceded by Texas was embraced within that territory, and 
it passed in that shape. When it went into the house they united the two 
bills together, and thus this clause passed in the same bill, as the senator 
from Arkansas desired. 

Now, sir, have I not shown conclusively that it was the understanding in 
that debate that the effect was to release the country North of 36° 30', which 
formerly belonged to Texas, from the operation of that restriction, and to pro- 
vide that it should come into the Union with or without slavery, as its people 
should see proper? 

That being the case, I ask the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) if he ought 
not to have been cautious when he charged over and over again that there 
was not a word or a syllable uttered in debate to that effect? Should he not 
have been cautious when he said that it was a mere after-thought on my 
part? Should he not have been cautious when he said that even I never 



252 LIFE OF STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 

dreamed of it up to the 4th of January of this year ? Whereas the record 
shows that I made a speech to that effectfduring the pendency of the bills of 
1850. The same statement was repeated by nearly every senator who fol- 
lowed him in debate in opposition to this bill ; and it is now being circulated 
over the country, published in every abolition paper, and read on every stump 
by every abolition orator, in order to get up a prejudice against me and the 
measure I have introduced. Those gentlemen should not have dared to utter 
the statement without knowing whether it was correct or not. These records 
are troublesome things sometimes. It is not proper for a man to charge 
another with a mere after-thought because he did not know that he had 
advocated the same principles before. Because he did not know it he should 
not take it for granted that nobody else did. Let me tell the senators that it 
is a very unsafe rule for them to rely upon. They ought to have had sufficient 
respect for a brother senator to have believed, when he came forward with an 
important proposition, that he had investigated it. They ought to have had 
sufficient respect for a committee of this body to have assumed that they 
meant what they said. 

"When I see such a system of misinterpretation and misrepresentation of 
views, of laws, of records, of debates, all tending to mislead the public, to ex- 
cite prejudice, and to propagate error, have I not a right to expose it in very 
plain terms, without being arraigned for violating the courtesies of the Senate ? 

Mr. President, frequent reference has been made in debate to the admission 
of Arkansas as a slaveliolding state, as furnishing evidence that the abolition- 
ists and freesoilers, who have recently become so much enamored with the 
Missouri Compromise, have always been faithful to its stipulations and im- 
plications. I will show that the reference is unfortunate for them. When 
Arkansas applied for admission in 1836, objection was made in consequence 
of the provisions of her Constitution in respect to slavery. When the aboli- 
tionists and freesoilers of that day were arraigned for making that objection, 
upon the ground that Arkansas was South of 36° 30', they replied that the 
act of 1820 was never a compromise, much less a compact, imposing any ob- 
ligation upon the successors of those who passed the act to pay any more re- 
spect to its provisions than to any other enactment of ordinary legislation. I 
have the debates before me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate only 
to read one or two paragraphs. Mr. Hand, of New York, in opposition to the 
admission of Arkansas as a slaveliolding state, said : 

" I am aware it will be, as it ha3 already been contended, that by the 
Missouri Compromise, as it has been preposterously termed, Congress has 
parted with its right to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territory 
. south of 36° 30' north latitude." 

He acknowledged that by the Missouri compromise, as he said it was 
preposterously termed, the North was estopped from denying the right to 
hold slaves South of that line ; but, he added : 

" There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to the soundness of that 
proposition." 

Here they are : 

{! In the first place, there was no compromise or compact whereby Con- 
gress surrendered any power, or yielded any jurisdiction; and, in the second 
place, if it had done so, it was a mere legislative act, that could not bind 
, their successors ; it would be subject to a repeal at the will of any succeed- 
ing Congress." 

I give these passages as specimens of the various speeches made in oppo- 
sition to the admission of Arkansas by the same class of politicians who 
now oppose the Nebraska bill, upon the ground that it violates a solemn 
compact. So much for the speeches. Now for the vote. The journal which 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 253 

I hold in my hand shows that forty-nine northern votes were recorded 
against the admission of Arkansas. 

Yet, sir, in utter disregard — and charity leads me to hope, in profound 
ignorance — of all these facts, gentlemen are boasting that the North always 
observed the contract, never denied its validity, never wished to violate it ; 
and they have even referred to the cases of the admission of Missouri and 
Arkansas as instances of their good faith. 

Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose these things could bo 
said and distributed in their speeches without exposure? Did they presume 
that, inasmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery agitation, whatever 
they did not know about the history of that question did not exist ? I am 
willing to believe, I hope it may be the fact, that they were profoundly igno- 
rant of all these records, all these debates, all these facts, which overthrow 
every position they have assumed. I wish the senator from Maine (Mr. Fes- 
senden), who delivered his maiden speech here to-night, and who made a 
great many sly stabs at me, had informed himself upon the subject before 
he repeated aU these groundless assertions. I can excuse him, for the reason 
that he has been here but a few days, and, having enlisted under the ban- 
ner of the abolition confederates, was unwise and simple enough to believe 
that what they had published could be relied upon as stubborn facts. He 
may be an innocent victim. I hope he can have the excuse of not having 
investigated the subject. I am willing to excuse him on the ground that he 
did not know what, he was talking about, and it is the only excuse which I 
can make for him. I will say, however, that I do not think he was required 
by his loyalty to the abolitionists to repeat every disreputable insinuation 
which they made. Why did he throw into his speech that foul inuendo 
about "a northern man with southern principles," and then quote the senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) as his authority ? Ay, sir, I say that foul 
insinuation. Did not the senator from Massachusetts who first dragged it 
into this debate wish to have the public understand that I was known as a 
northern man with southern principles? Was not that the allusion? If it 
was, he availed himself of a cant phrase in the public mind, in violation of 
the truth of history. I know of but one man in this country who ever made 
it a boast that he was "a northern man with southern principles," and he 
(turning to Mr. Sumner) was your candidate for the Presidency in 1848. 
(Applause in the galleries.) 

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Mason.) Order, order. 

Mr. Douglas. If his sarcasm was intended for Martin Van Buren, it in- 
volves a family quarrel, with which I have no disposition to interfere. I will 
only add that I have been able to discover nothing in the present position or 
recent history of that distinguished statesman which would lead me to covet 
the sobriquet by which he is known — "a northern man with southern prin- 
ciples." 

Mr. President, the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and 
Mr. Sumner) have taken the liberty to impeach my motives in bringing for- 
ward this measure. I desire to know by what right they arraign me, or by 
what authority they impute to me other and different motives than those 
which I have assigned. I have shown from the record that I advocated and 
voted for the same principles and provisions in the compromise acts of 1850 
which are embraced in this bill. I have proven that I put the same construc- 
tion upon those measures immediately after their adoption that is given in the 
report which I submitted this session from the Committee on Territories. I 
have shown that the Legislature of Illinois at its first session, after those 
measures were enacted, passed resolutions approving them, and declaring that 
the same great principles of self-government should be incorporated into all 
territorial organizations. Yet, sir, in the face of these facts, these senators 



254 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

have the hardihood to declare that this was all an " after-lhought" on my 
part, conceived for the first time during the present session ; and that the 
measure is offered as a bid for presidential votes ! Are they incapable of con- 
ceiving that an honest man can do a right thing from worthy motives ? I 
must be permitted to tell those senators that their experience in seeking po- 
litical preferment does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the charac- 
ter and principles of other senators ! 

I must be permitted to tell the senator from Ohio that I did not obtain my 
seat in this body either by a corrupt bargain or a dishonorable coalition ! I 
must be permitted to remind the senator from Massachusetts that I did not 
enter into any combinations or arrangements by which my character, my 
principles, and my honor, were set up at public auction or private sale, in 
order to procure a seat in the Senate of the United States ! I did not come 
into the Senate by any such means. 

Mr. Welter. But there are some men whom I know that did. 

Mr. Chase, (to Mr. TVeller.) Do you say that I came here by a bargain ? 

The Presiding Office); (Mr. Mason.) Order must be preserved in the 
Senate. 

Mr. Weller. I will explain what I mean. 

The Presiding Officer. The senator from Illinois is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. Bodge, of Iowa. I call both the senator from California and senator from 
Ohio to order. 

Mr. Douglas. I cannot yield the floor until I get through. I say, then, 
there is nothing which authorized that senator to impugn my motives. 

Mr. Chase. Will the senator from IUinois allow me ? Does he say that I 
came into the Senate by a corrupt bargain ? 

Mr. Douglas. I cannot permit the senator to change the issue. He has 
arraigned me on the charge of seeking high political station by unworthy 
means. I tell him there is nothing in my history which would create the sus- 
picion that I came into the Senate by a corrupt bargain or a disgraceful coali- 
tion ? 

Mr. Chase. "Whoever says that I came here by a corrupt bargain states 
what is false. 

Mr. Welter. Mr. President 

Mr. Douglas. My friend from California will wait till I get through, if he 
pleases. 

The Presiding Officer. The senator from IUinois is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. Douglas. It will not do for the senator from Ohio to return offensive 
expressions after what I have said and proven. Nor can I permit him to 
change the issue, and thereby divert public attention from the enormity of his 
offence, in charging me with unworthy motives, while performing a high 
public duty, in obedience to the expressed wish and known principles of my 
state. I choose to maintain my own position, and leave the public to ascer- 
tain, if they do not understand, how and by what means he was elected to 
the Senate. 

Mr. Chase. If the senator will allow me, I will say, in reply to the remarks 
which the senator has just made, that I did not understand him as calling upon 
me for any explanation of the statement which he said was made in regard 
to a presidential bid. The exact statement in the address was this — it was a 
question addressed to the people: "Would they allow their dearest rights to 
» be made the hazards of a presidential game?" That was the exact expres- 
sion. Now, sir, it is well known that all these great measures in the country 
are influenced, more or less, by reference to the great public canvasses which 
are going on from time to time. I certainly did not intend to impute to the 
senator from Illinois — and I desire always to do justice — in that any improper 
motive. I do not think it is an unworthy ambition to desire to be a President 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 255 

of the United States. I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure 
with reference to that object w r ould be an improper thing, if the measure be 
proper in itself. I differ from the senator in my judgment of the measure. I 
do not think the measure is a right one. In that I express the judgment 
which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn his judgment ; I do not make, 
and I do not desire to make, any personal imputations upon him in reference 
to a great public question. 

Mr. Wetter. Mr. President 

Mr. Douglas. I cannot allow my friend from California to come into the 
debate at this time, for this is my peculiar business. I may let him in after 
awhile. I wish to examine the explanation of the senator from Ohio, and 
see whether I ought to accept it as satisfactory. He has quoted the language 
of the address. It is undeniable that that language clearly imputed to me the 
design of bringing forward this bill with a view of securing my own election to 
the presidency. Then, by way of excusing himself for imputing to me such 
a purpose, the senator says that he does not consider it "an unworthy ambi- 
tion;" and hence he says that, in making the charge, he does not impugn my 
motives. I must remind him that, in addition to that insinuation, he only 
said, in the same address, that my bill was a " criminal betrayal of precious 
rights;" he only said it was " an atrocious plot against freedom and human- 
ity;" he only said that it was "meditated bad faith;" he only spoke signifi- 
cantly of "servile demagogues;" he only called upon the preachers of the 
Gospel and the people at their public meetings to denounce and resist such a 
monstrous iniquity. In saying all this, and much of the same sort, he now 
assures me, in the presence of the Senate, that he did not mean the charge to 
imply an " unworthy ambition ;" that it was not intended as a " personal im- 
putation" upon my motives or character; and that he meant "no personal dis- 
respect" to me as the author of the measure. In reply, I will content myself 
with the remark, that there is a very wide difference of opinion between the 
senator from Ohio and myself in respect to the meaning of words, and es- 
pecially in regard to the line of conduct which, in a public man, does not 
constitute an unworthy ambition. 

Mr. Wetter. Now, I ask my friend from Illinois to give way to me for a 
few moments. 

Mr. Douglas. I yield the floor. 

A debate then took place between Messrs Weller and 
Chase, which is omitted here. 

Mr. Sumner. Will the senator from Illinois yield the floor to me for a 
moment ? 

Mr. Douglas. As I presume it is on the same point. I wall hear the testi- 
mony. 

Mr. Sumner. Mr. President, I shrink always instinctively from any effort 
to repel a personal assault. I do not recognize the jurisdiction of this body 
to try my election to the Senate ; but I do state, in reply to the senator from 
Illinois, that if he means to suggest that I came into the body by any waiver 
of principles ; by any abandonment of my principles of any kind ; by any 
effort or activity of my own, in any degree, he states that which cannot be 
sustained by the facts. I never sought, in any way, the office which I now 
hold ; nor was I a party, in any way, directly or indirectly, to those efforts 
which placed me here. 

Mr. Douglas. I do not complain of my friend from California for interpos- 
ing in the manner he has ; for I see that it was very appropriate in him to do 
so. But, sir, the senator, from Massachusetts comes up with a very bold front, 
and denies the right of any man to put him on defence for the manner of his 



256 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

election. He says it is contrary to his principles to engage in personal as- 
saults. If he expects to avail himself of4he benefit of such a plea., he should 
act in accordance with his professed principles, and refrain from assaulting the 
character and impugning the motives of better men than himself. Everybody 
knows that he came here by a coalition or combination between political par- 
ties holding opposite and hostile opinions. But it is not my purpose to go in- 
to the morality of the matters involved in his election. The public know the 
history of that notorious coalition, and have formed its judgment upon it. It 
will not do for the senator to say that he was not a party to it, for he thereby 
betrays a consciousness of the immortality of the transaction without ac- 
quitting himself of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As well 
might the receiver of stolen goods deny any responsibility for the larcency, 
while luxuriating in the proceeds of the crime, as the senator to avoid the 
consequences resulting from the mode of his election, while he clings to the 
office. I must be permitted to remind him of what he certainly can never 
forget, that when he arrived here to take his seat for the first time, so firmly 
were senators impressed with the conviction that he had been elected by dis- 
honorable and corrupt means, there were very few who, for a long time, could 
deem it consistent with personal honor to hold private intercourse with him. 
So general was that impression, that for a long time he was avoided and 
shunned as a person unworthy of the association of gentlemen. Gradually, 
however, these injurious impressions were worn away by his bland manners 
and amiable deportment ; and I regret that the senator should now, by a vio- 
lation of all the rules of courtesy and propriety, compel me to refresh his mind 
upon these unwelcome reminiscences. 

Mr. Chase. If the senator refers to me, he is stating a fact of which I have 
no knowledge at all I came here » 

Mr. Douglas. I was not speaking of the senator from Ohio, but of his con- 
federate in slander, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner). I have a 
word now to say to the other senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade). On tha day 
when I exposed this abolition address, so full of slanders and. calumnies, he 
rose and stated that, although his name was signed to it, he had never read 
it; and so willing was he to endorse an abolition document, that he signed it 
in blank, without knowing what it contained. 

Mr. Wade. I have always found them true. 

Mr. Douglas. He stated that from what I had exposed of its contents he 
did not hesitate to endorse every word. In the same speech he said, that in 
Ohio a negro was as good as a white man ; with the avowal that he did not 
consider himself any better than a free negro. I have only to say that I should 
not have noticed it if none but free negroes had signed it ! 

The senator from New York (Mr. Seward), when I was about to call him to 
account for this slanderous production, promptly denied that he ever signed 
the document. Now, I say that it has been circulated with his name attached 
to it ; then I want to know of the senators who sent out the document, who 
forged the name of the senator from New York ? 

Mr. Chase. I am glad that the senator has asked that question. I have 
only to say, in reference to that matter, that I have not the slightest knowl- 
edge in regard to the manner in which various names were appended to that 
document. It was prepared to be signed, and was signed, by the gentlemen 
here who are known as independent Democrats, and how any other names 
came to be added to it is more than I can tell. 

Mr. Douglas. It is not a satisfactory answer, for those who confess to the 
preparation and publication of a document filled with insult and calumny, 
with forged names attached to it for the purpose of imparting to it respecta- 
bility, to interpose a technical denial that they committed the crime. Some- 
body did forge other people's names to that document. The senators from 



THE KANSAS-NEBEASKA ACT. 257 

Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr- Samner) plead guilty to the au- 
thorship and publication ; upon them rests the responsibility of showing who 
committed the forgery. 

Mr. President, I have done with these personal matters. I regret the ne- 
cessity which compelled me to devote so much time to them. All I have done 
and said has been in the way of self-defense,' as the Senate can bear me 
witness. 

Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of time in exposing the 
cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri Compromise, and 
the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith. I have exposed these 
matters in order to show that the object of these men is to withdraw from 
public attention the real principle involved in the bill. They well know that 
the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise is the incident and not the prin- 
ciple of the bill. They well understand that the report of the committee and 
the bill propose to establish the principle in all territorial organizations, that 
the question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for them- 
selves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary to remove 
all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by the people. 

The eighth section of the Missouri Act standing in the way of this great 
principle must be rendered inoperative and void, whether expressly repealed 
or not, in order to give the people the power of regulating their own domestic 
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. 

Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correctness of 
their own position, why do they not meet the issue boldly and fairly, and 
controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obe- 
dience to the Constitution ? They know full well that this was the principle 
upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain, the prin- 
ciple upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle 
upon which our republican system was founded. They can not be ignorant 
of the fact that the Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the 
part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs and do- 
mestic concerns of the colonies. In this connection I will invite attention to a 
few extracts from the instructions of the different colonies to their delegates 
in the Continental Congress, with the view of forming such a union as would 
enable them to make successful resistance to the efforts of the crown to destroy 
the fundamental principles of all free government by interfering with the do- 
mestic affairs of the colonies. 

I will begin with Pennsylvania, whose devotion, to the principle of human 
liberty, and the obligations of the Constitution, has acquired for her the proud 
title of Key-stone in the arch of republican states. In her instructions is con- 
tained the following reservation : 

" Reserving to the people of this colony the sole and exclusive right of reg- 
ulating the internal government and police of the same." 

And, in a subsequent instruction, in reference to suppressing the British 
authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania uses the following emphatic lan- 



Unanimously declare our willingness to concur in a vote of the Congress 
declaring the United Colonies fr^e and independent States, provided the form- 
ing the government and the regulation of the internal police of this colony 
be always reserved to the people of the said colony." 

Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for the Declaration of 
Independence, attached to it the following condition : 

" Saving that the administration of government, and the power of forming 
governments for, and the regulation of the internal concerns and police of 
each colony, ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legisla- 
tures." 



258 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

New Hampshire annexed this proviso, to her instructions to her delegates 
to vote for independence : 

" Provided the regulation of our internal police be under the direction of 
our own assembly." 

New Jersey imposed the following condition : 

" Always observing that, whatever plan of confederacy you enter into, the 
regulating the internal police of this province is to be reserved to the colo- 
nial legislature." 

Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration of Independence upon the 
condition contained in this proviso : 

" And that said colony will hold itself bound by the resolutions of a ma- 
jority of the United colonies in the premises, provided the sole and exclu- 
sive right of regulating the internal government and police of that colony 
be reserved to the people thereof." 

Yirginia annexed the following condition to her instructions to vote for 
the Declaration of Independence : 

" Provided that the power of forming government for, and the regulations 
of the internal concerns of the colony, be left to respective colonial legis- 
latures." 

I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon this point. It 
is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the vio- 
lation of that great fundamental principle which secured to the people of the 
colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way ; 
and that the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the 
recognition of the right asserted by it. 

Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and extinguish the principle for 
which our forefathers waged a seven years' bloody war, and upon which our 
whole system of free government is founded. They not only deny the appli- 
cation of this principle to the territories, but insist upon fastening the prohi- 
bition upon all the states to be formed out of those territories. Therefore, the 
doctrine of the abolitionists — the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska 
and Kansas Bill, and of the advocates of the Missouri restriction — demand 
congressional interference with slavery, not only in the territories, but in all 
the new states to be formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine when ap- 
plied to the territories and new states of this Union, which the British govern- 
ment attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American colonies. It is 
this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguish- 
ing feature of the Nebraska Bill. The opponents of the principle are consistent 
in opposing the bill. I do not blame them for their opposition. I only ask 
them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are op- 
posed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into operation. 
It seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power, no mechanical 
power that can bring them to a fair discussion of the true issue. If they hope 
to delude the people, and escape detection for any considerable length of time 
under the catch-word "Missouri Compromise," and "faith of compacts," 
they will find that the people of this country have more penetration and intel- 
ligence than they have given them credit for. 

Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this slavery reso- 
lution which should never be lost sight of. It has always arisen from one 
and the same cause. Whenever that cause has been removed, the agitation 
has ceased; and whenever the cause has been renewed, the agitation has 
sprung into existence. That cause is, and ever has been, the attempt on the 
part of Congress to interfere with the question of slavery in the territories and 
new states formed therefrom. Is it not wise, then, to confine our action 
within the sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question to 
take care of itself in each state and territory, according to the wishes of the 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 259 

people thereof, in conformity to the forms and in subjection to the provisions 
of the Constitution ? 

The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their policy, 
that their great desire is peace and harmony ; and they complain bitterly that 
I should have disturbed the repose of the country by the introduction of this 
measure. Let me ask these professed friends of peace and avowed enemies 
of agitation, how the issue could have been avoided ? They tell me that I 
should have let the question alone — that is, that I should have left Nebraska 
unorganized, the people unprotected, and the Indian barrier in existence, 
until the swelling tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by 
violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct and regu- 
late by law. How long could you have postponed action with safety ? How 
long could you maintain that Indian barrier, and restrain the onward march 
of. civilization, Christianity, and free government by a barbarian wall ? Do 
you suppose that you could *keep that vast country a howling wilderness in 
all time to come, roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all safe commu- 
nication between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions ? I tell you that the 
time for action lias come, and cannot be postponed. It is a case in which the 
"let-alone" policy would precipitate a crisis which must inevitably result in 
violence, anarchy, and strife. 

You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and growing 
country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. He will burst all 
your chains. He will expand, and grow, and increase, and extend civiliza- 
tion, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if you cannot check the 
growth of the country in that direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look 
the danger in the face, and provide for an event which you cannot avoid ? I 
tell you, sir, you must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Mis- 
sissippi Yalley to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision you must 
decide upon what principles the territories shall be organized ; in other words, 
whether the people shall be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in 
their own way, according to the provisions of this bill, or whether the oppo- 
site doctrine of congressional interference is to prevail. Postpone it, if you 
will ; but whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided. 

The Missouri Compromise was interference; the compromise of 1850 was 
non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights under the Consti- 
tution. The Committee on Territories were compelled to act on this subject. 
I, as their chairman, was bound to meet the question. I choose to take the 
responsibility, regardless of consequences personal to myself. I should have 
done the same thing last year, if there had been time ; but we know, con- 
sidering the late period at which the bill then reached us from the house, that 
there was not sufficient time to consider the question fully, and to prepare a 
report upon the subject. I was, therefore, persuaded by friends to allow the 
bill to be reported to the Senate, in order that such action might be taken as 
should be deemed wise and proper. 

The bill was never taken up for action ; the last night of the session having 
been exhausted in debate on the motion to take up the bill. This session 
the measure was introduced by my friend from Iowa (Mr. Dodge), and refer- 
red to the Territorial Committee during the first week of the session. "We 
have abundance of time to consider the subject ; it was a matter of pressing 
necessity, and there was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. 
"We were compelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of interven- 
tion or non-intervention. We chose the latter, for two reasons : first, be- 
cause we believed that the principle was right ; and, second, because it was 
the principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great political parties of the 
country were solemnly pledged. 

There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recognized as a 



280 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

rule of action in all time to come. It -will have the effect to destroy all sec- 
tional parties and sectional agitations. * If, in the language of the report of 
the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from the halls of Congress 
and the political arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of those who are 
immediately interested in and alone responsible for its consequences, there is 
nothing left out of which sectional parties can be organized. It never was 
done, and never can be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any other 
party issue which has existed, or may exist, after this slavery question is 
withdrawn from politics. On every other political question these have al- 
ways supporters and opponents in every portion of the Union — in each state, 
county, village, and neighborhood — residing together in harmony and good- 
fellowship, and combating each other's opinions and correcting each other's 
errors in a spirit of kindness and friendship. These differences of opinion be- 
tween neighbors and friends, and the discussions that grow out of them, and 
the sympathy which each feels with the advocates of his own opinions in 
every other portion of this wide-spread republic, adds an overwhelming and 
irresistible moral weight to the strength of the confederacy. 

Affection for the Union can never be alienated or diminished by any other 
party issues than those which are joined upon sectional or geographical lines. 
When the people of the North shall all be rallied under one banner, and the 
whole South marshaled under another banner, and each section excited to 
frenzy and madness by hostility to the institutions of the other, then the pat- 
riot may well tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery 
question from the political arena, and remove it to the states and territories, 
each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. Then you will 
never be able to tell, by any senator's vote for or against any measure, from 
what state or section of the Union he comes. 

Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from politics ? Why 
can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of action in all new terri- 
torial organizations ? Why can we not deprive these agitators of their voca- 
tion, and render it impossible for senators to come here upon bargains on the 
slavery question? I believe that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of 
the Union require us to go back to the doctrines of the Kevolution, to the 
principles of the Constitution, to the principles of the compromise of 1850, 
and leave the people, under the Constitution, to do as they may see proper in 
respect to their own internal affairs. 

Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a northern man 
or as a southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and dis- 
tinctions. I have brought it forward as an American senator, representing a 
state which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action in 
respect to the Nebraska Bill. I have brought it forward not as an act of just- 
ice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an 
act of justice to the people of those territories, and of the states to be formed 
therefrom, now and in all time to come. 

I have nothing to say about northern rights or southern rights. I know 
of no such divisions or distinctions under the Constitution. The bill does 
equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every part of it; it violates 
the rights of no state or territory, but places each on a perfect equality, and 
leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their rights under the 
Constitution. 

Now, sir, I wish to say to our southern friends, that if they desire to see 
this great principle carried out, now is their time to rally around it, to cherish 
it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future time. If they fail to do 
it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of interference to prevail, upon their 
heads the consequence of that interference must rest. To our northern friends, 
on the other hand, I desire to say, that from this day henceforward, they 



THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT. 261 

must rebuke the slander which has been uttered against the South, that they 
desire to legislate slavery into the territories. The South has vindicated her 
sincerity, her honor, on that point, by bringing forward a provision, negativing, 
in express terms, any such effect as a result of this bill. I am rejoiced to 
know that, while the proposition to abrogate the eighth section of the Missouri 
act comes from a free state, the proposition to negative the conclusion that 
slavery is thereby introduced comes from a slaveholding state. Thus, both 
sides furnish conclusive evidence that they go for the principle, and the prin- 
ciple only, and desire to take no advantage of any possible misconstruction. 

Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for having occu- 
pied their attention so long, and a still greater apology for having discussed 
the question in such an incoherent and desultory manner. But I could not 
forbear to claim the right of closing this debate. I thought gentlemen would 
recognize its propriety when they saw the manner in which I was assailed 
and misrepresented in the course of this discussion, and especially by assaults 
still more disreputable to some portions of the country. These assaults have 
had no other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy for a still 
more resolute discharge of duty. I say frankly that, in my opinion, this 
measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions 
and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood. 
The people at the North are attached to the principles of self-government ; 
and you cannot convince them that that is self-government which deprives a 
people of the right of legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive 
laws which are forced upon them by a Legislature in which they are not re- 
presented. We are willing to stand upon this great principle of self-govern- 
ment everywhere ; and it is to us a proud reflection that, in this whole discus- 
sion, no friend of the bill has urged an argument in its favor which could not 
be used with the same propriety in a free state as in a slave state, and vice 
versa. But no enemy of the bill has used an argument which would bear 
repetition one mile across Mason and Dixon's line. Our opponents have dealt 
entirely in sectional appeals. The friends of the bill have discussed a great 
principle of universal application, which can be sustained by the same reasons, 
and the same arguments, in every time and in every corner of the Union. 

PRESIDENT PIERCE AND THE NEBRASKA BILL. 

A strong effort was made at the time the Kansas Nebraska 
Bill was introduced to withhold from President Pierce the 
full measure of justice touching his support of that measure, 
particularly that provision repealing the Missouri restriction. 
The enemies of the bill sought every means to sow discord 
among its friends, and the most wretched slanders were indus- 
triously circulated. These continued long after the bill had 
become a law. As late as October 6, 1855, the JVew York 
JPost, speaking of the repeal of the Missouri restriction, re- 
peated a whole series of them, condensed into the following 
paragraph : 

" Douglas was at first hostile to the scheme. He refused, as chairman of 
the Committee on Territories, to propose Atchison's repealing amendment 
to the Nebraska Bill. Cass was opposed to it ; and when introduced at last 
by Douglas, who surrendered to Atchison, Cass admitted in his speech, 
prefatory to his voting for it, that it was dangerous and unnecessary. The 
President was opposed to it, as was disclosed by the Union, which opposed 



262 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the repeal of the Missouri Compromise when first broached in Douglas' am- 
biguous bill, although the editor is, and«was known at the time to be, zeal- 
ous for the repeal. His holding back was merely in respect to the President's 
scruples, who was doubly committed against the resurrection of the slave 
struggle, first by his inaugural address, and then in his maiden message to 
Congress." 

On the 9th of October, 1855, the Washington Union contained 
the following authentic denial of the slanders, and an equally- 
authoritative exposition of the position of President Pierce : 

" This is a total perversion of the history of the Nebraska Bill and of the 
introduction into it of the clause repealing the Missouri restriction. It is 
not true that either Senators Douglas or Cass, or President Pierce, was ever 
opposed to the repeal of the Missouri restriction. These statesmen were 
the early, the earnest, and the consistent advocates of the principle of con- 
gressional non-intervention in the territories, and of necessity were opposed 
to the recognition by act of Congress of the Missouri restriction, which was 
in direct conflict with that principle. The only question that presented it- 
self to Senator Douglas, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, was 
whether the Nebraska Bill should be drawn in the language of the Compro- 
mise of 1850, and be a litteral copy of the New Mexico and Utah Bills, so 
far as the slavery question was concerned, and therefore be a repeal of the 
Missouri restriction by necessary implication, or whether, in addition to the 
language of the Compromise of 1850, there should be a clause expressly re- 
pealing the Missouri restriction." 

****** 

"After the bill was introduced the abolition leaders in Congress denounced 
it with violence as a violation of the Missouri compact ; moreover, doubts 
were suggested by southern men as to whether the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise was so clear as to satisfy slave-owners that they might settle in 
the territory and risk a judicial decision as to their property with safety. On 
the other hand it was suggested by northern men that there was no doubt 
about the repeal of the Missouri Compromise ; but there was doubt whether 
the legal effect thereof was not to revive the Louisiana law of 1803, by 
which Nebraska was slave territory. To remove all room for doubt, and to 
free the question of non-intervention in Nebraska from all controversy, Sena- 
tor Douglas himself brought forward the amendments which placed the bill 
in the shape in which it passed. 

"It is due to the truth -of history to state, also, that the amendments were 
seen and approved by President Pierce and General Cass before they were 
offered in the Senate by Senator Douglas. These three gentlemen were the 
earnest and consistent advocates of the Nebraska Bill, from its inception to its 
final passage, and we are entirely certain that its legal effect in the shape in 
which it passed is identically that which they attributed to it in the shape in 
which Mr. Douglas first introduced it. We go further, and affirm, with entire 
confidence in our ability to maintain the assertion, that the bill as it finally 
passed does not differ in the slightest degree in principle from the Compro- 
mise of 1850." 

We have thought this much due to Gen. Pierce. The Ne- 
braska Bill was not forced upon his administration. He was 
not a man to submit to a wrong, or to acquiesce in a wrong. 
It was his measure — having his full approval before it was 
proposed to Congress. 



BLNOW-JNOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBEASKAISM. 263 



CHAPTER XI. 

KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-1TEBEASKAISM. 

When the bill passed Congress, the storm of hostility to its 
enactment was in full progress. The vote in the House upon 
its passage was classified as follows : 

For. Against. 

Democrats, non-slaveholding states 43 43 

" slaveholding states 57 4 

Whigs, non-slaveholding states — 44 

" slaveholding states 13 5 

Free-soilers — 4 

113 100 

The action upon this bill separated the Northern and South- 
ern Whigs. During the winter and spring there had been or- 
ganizing, under the powerful appliances of secrecy and mys- 
tery, a new party. At first it was known as the " Know-noth- 
ing" party, under which style it continued to be known as long 
as it was successful, after which it adopted the general title of 
the " American" party. 

The Nebraska Bill had a very large number of opponents 
among the Democracy of the Northern States. The Abolition 
leaders at the North proposed a union of men of all parties, 
having for its object the exclusion from Congress of every 
Northern man who had voted for the bill. Into this unfortu- 
nate movement a very large number of Democrats thoughtless- 
ly plunged. The new party was styled the " Anti-Nebraska" 
or " Fusion" party, being a combination of the Abolitionists, 
Free-soilers, Anti-Nebraska Democrats, Whigs, and Know- 
nothings. It was under the deluding misrepresentations of 
the real terms and objects of the Nebraska Bill, and not be- 
cause of any affection for the proscriptive doctrines of the 
Know-nothings, that thousands of Democrats were eventually 
led on step by step, until they found themselves sworn mem- 
bers of the dark-lantern order. The combination was soon a 
powerful one. It controlled cities, states, and sections. Ev- 
ery where the new party pledged itself to the most ultra doc- 



264 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

trines upon the subject of slavery. The hostility toward Cath- 
olics and foreigners was revived in a new and most bitter 
spirit. It was no longer the open and fearless hostility such 
as culminated in 1844 in the church-burning riots in Philadel- 
phia. The operations were in secret. Its members were un- 
known ; no man could tell whether his neighbor in the coun- 
cils of his own party was or was not a member of the secret 
order. Men and parties were paralyzed. Who would dare 
encounter the new political monster, whose organization was 
extended to all parts of the country, and embraced men of all 
parties ? It sprung up rapidly. In May the Know-nothings, 
aided by the Anti-Nebraska men, elected their candidate for 
mayor in Philadelphia by six thousand majority. This elec- 
tion demonstrated its political power. Political leaders coun- 
seled conciliatory measures ; others favored an acquiescence in 
its rule. The Whig party was swallowed up in the capacious 
portals of the mysterious lodges. Necessarily acting with it, 
if not indeed actually enrolled as members, were the Anti-Ne- 
braska Democrats, Abolitionists, and Free-soilers. Who was 
to encounter this new and formidable political party ? It was 
to be crushed by the Democratic party, or it would soon crush 
the latter. But who in the Democratic party would under- 
take the task of denouncing a party of whose principles so lit- 
tle was known, and whose organization and membership were 
so mysterious ? Though Congress was in session, not a speech 
was made upon the subject. Every day it became more evi- 
dent that the Democratic party alone would have to encounter 
the Know-nothing party and its allies, yet there were but few 
willing or sufficiently posted to open the contest. 

Mr. Douglas was at the North on a business visit, and stop- 
ped, on his return to Washington, in Philadelphia to pass the 
4th of July. It has been an immemorial custom for the De- 
mocracy in that city to celebrate the 4th of July by an ora- 
tion in Independence Square. The committee of arrange- 
ments, hearing of Mr. Douglas's presence in the city, called on 
him with a request to address the meeting. He consented, but 
frankly told them that if he spoke he would necessarily touch 
upon the Nebraska Bill and Know-nothingism — the two " del- 
icate questions" which timid men at that day did all in their 
power to avoid. After some conversation upon this matter, it 
was agreed that Mr. Douglas should be allowed to speak his 



KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBRASKAISM. 265 

own sentiments in his own way. He addressed that meeting 
that day. It was the first speech ever delivered in the United 
States by any prominent public man, since the organization of 
the Know-nothing party, against the proscriptive principles of 
that party. It was received by the Democracy of Philadelphia 
with enthusiastic delight. It broke the spell which had ap- 
parently hung over the party, and which had closed men's lips 
and paralyzed their hands respecting the most dangerous and 
insidious opponents that ever threatened the Democratic party. 
He spoke out words of condemnation and defiance ; and men, 
taking courage from his bold words, felt relieved, and, giving 
vent to the feelings so long held in subjection, recognized in 
the orator the bold and daring statesman who never yet, in 
any part of his eventful career, paused in defense of the right 
or condemnation of the wrong to inquire what would be the 
consequences of his action toward himself personally. 

From that day forth Know-nothingism had a stern oppo- 
nent in the Democratic party, and from that day forth the 
Democracy never faltered until it had subdued, conquered, and 
broken up the organization in the Northern States. This 
speech was printed in pamphlet form and widely circulated. 
Though that part of it relating to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill is 
in the main a repetition of sentiments advanced by him in the 
Senate during the pendency of the bill, it is just that it should 
be here given. It was the first speech made outside of Con- 
gress in defense of the bill ; and as it is fashionable in some 
quarters to say that he then represented that bill as meaning 
something very different to what he now claims for it, it is but 
just that his exposition then should be placed alongside of his 
exposition of the same measure now. He said : 
Mr. President and Fellow-citizens : 

While I am profoundly grateful for the generous enthusiasm with which 
you have received the kind remarks of my friend General Dawson, I know not 
whether I ought to make my acknowledgments to him for having created in 
your minds expectations which it is impossible for me to fulfill. I feel that 
it is good for us to be here on this day. The day and the place are conse- 
crated to liberty. It is a hallowed spot. I enter Independence Square — I 
approach Independence Hall on the Fourth of July with feelings akin to 
those of the pilgrim when he approaches the holy places. It is the birth- 
place of American liberty. Here the Declaration of Independence was first 
promulgated — here the Constitution of the United States was formed. On 
this veiy spot were proclaimed in that declaration and embodied in that 
Constitution those glorious principles of civil and religious freedom which 
our fathers have transmitted to us as the most precious of all earthly bless- 
ings. [Great applause.] 

M 



266 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

In these days, when efforts are being made to stir up sectional strife, and 
organize political parties on geographical lines — when religious intolerance 
and persecution are being practiced through the agency of secret associations 
— and when men in high places sacrilegiously deny all obligation to carry 
into effect the plain and imperative injunctions of the Constitution which 
they have sworn to support, it is well for good men and true patriots to as- 
semble on our national birthday, at the birthplace of our liberties, and unite 
their efforts to preserve our republican institutions by perpetuating the prin- 
ciples upon which they rest. [Applause.] 

On the 4th of July, '7G, from the place where I now stand, our forefathers 
declared that these " Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and 
independent states." That was the starting-point. Thirteen British col- 
onies were on that day converted into thirteen independent American states. 
The language is clear and explicit. The causes which led to the separation, 
and the instructions which the several colonies gave to their delegates in the 
Congress, prescribing the conditions upon which the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence was to be made, clearly show why this emphatic language was 
used. The colonies did not, in the first instance, demand independence. 
They were willing to acknowledge their allegiance to the British crown, pro- 
vided they were left free to manage and regulate their own internal affairs 
and domestic concerns in their own way, without the interference or dictation 
of the imperial government. They were willing to recognize the right of Great 
Britain to grant colonial charters, like the organic laws of our Territorial govern- 
ments, by which the people of the colonies might make their own laics through 
their representatives in their local Legislatures ; but they solemnly protested 
against the right of the imperial Parliament, in which they had no repre- 
sentation, to make laws affecting their persons and property without their 
consent. Upon this point the separation took place, and the Declaration of 
Independence which you have just heard read declared the thirteen colonies 
to be " free and independent states." But, before the declaration was made, 
the colonies gave instructions to their delegates, prescribing the conditions 
upon which each would consent to such a declaration. These instructions 
all prescribe the fundamental condition that the people of each colony shall 
have the right to manage their internal affairs and domestic concerns as to them 
shall seem meet and proper. [Hearty cheers.] 

[Mr. Douglas recapitulated some facts of history, and then proceeded as 
follows :] 

Crime, in any of its forms and shapes, is a very great evil in any state or 
Territory ; yet Congress has never presumed to enact criminal codes for the 
Territories and new states — to declare what shall and what shall not be 
deemed criminal— to prescribe the penalty and point out the mode of pun- 
ishment. These things have always been left, and, I trust, always will be 
left, to the people of the different states and Territories, to be determined by 
them through their local Legislatures in accordance with their sense of right 
and duty. Why should we make an exception of the Slavery question, and 
apply to it a rule which is admitted to be unsound and subversive of consti- 
tutional right when applied to any other matter of local and domestic con- 
cern ? Are not the people of the Territories capable of self-government ? 
If not, why give them a Legislature at all — why allow them to make laws 
upon any subject ? If they are capable of self-government, does it require 
any higher degree of intelligence to legislate for the negro than for the white 
man, or to prescribe the relations of master and servant than those of hus- 
band and wife, and parent and child ? 

But, in order to excuse themselves for so palpable a repudiation of the 
great principle of self-government, the Abolitionists tell us that slavery is a 
violation of the law of God, and therefore the people of the Territories and 



KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBKASKAISM. 267 

new states should not be intrusted with the decision of the question as pro- 
vided in the Nebraska Bill. Without stopping to inquire into the sinfulness 
of slavery as a religious question, I do maintain that the mode provided in 
the Nebraska Bill for determining the controversy of its existence or exclu- 
sion, by referring it to the decision of the people, who are immediately inter- 
ested and alone responsible, is strictly in accordance with the divine law. 
When God created man, He placed before him good and evil, and endowed 
him with the capacity to decide for himself, and held him responsible for the 
consequences of the choice he might make. [Tremendous applause and 
cheers.] 

This is the divine origin of the great principle of self-government. [Ap- 
plause.] The Almighty breathed the principle into the nostrils of the first 
man in the garden of Eden, and empowered him and his descendants in all 
time to choose their own form of government, and to bear the evils and en- 
joy the blessings of their own deeds. The principle applies to communities, 
and Territories, and states, as well as to individual men. The principle 
applies to Kansas as well as to Pennsylvania — to Nebraska as well as to Vir- 
ginia. The Constitution of the United States is in perfect accord with this 
divine principle, leaving each state, and the people thereof, at liberty to gov- 
ern themselves and reap the harvest of the seed they may sow. [Immense 
applause — cries, "That is right," " that is right."] 

I repeat, therefore, that the Constitution of the United States does not es- 
tablish slavery, nor abolish it any where ; nor does it either enlarge or dimin- 
ish its area. It recognizes and protects all the institutions of the different 
states, however dissimilar or whatever their character, provided they are not 
in conflict with any of its provisions. Wherever slavery exists in any state 
by virtue of the local law, there the Constitution recognizes and protects the 
institution ; and wherever slavery is prohibited by the local law, the Consti- 
tution recognizes and protects the prohibition in such state. The Constitu- 
tion of the United States is the supreme law of the land, to which all must 
yield implicit obedience. [Applause.] 

It authorizes Congress to legislate upon the subject of slavery in two cases 
only : first, for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade ; and, second, for 
the surrender of fugitives from service. Congress has exerted in good faith 
the full measures of its authority in both cases. The Abolitionists avow their 
willingness to abide by the Constitution and law in the one case, where the 
introduction of any more slaves into the United States is prohibited, for the 
reason that the result is in harmony with their views. But in the other case, 
where the act of Congress was passed for the express purpose of carrying into 
effect a plain provision of the Constitution, by returning the slave to his mas- 
ter, these same Abolitionists say they will not abide by the law — they will 
trample upon the Constitution — they will set at defiance the constituted au- 
thorities, and bear aloft the standard of rebellion against the federal govern- 
ment, for the reason that this clause of the Constitution and the law for car- 
rying it into effect do not harmonize with their views. Their doctrine is that 
they will abide by and claim the benefit of the Constitution and laws when- 
ever and wherever they tend to advance their peculiar theories and opinions ; 
and, on the contrary, they will resist both the Constitution and laws, with 
force and violence, whenever that line of policy is necessary to the accom- 
plishment of their philanthropic views upon the subject of slavery. 

KNOW-ISTOTHINGISM. 

Efforts are now being made to organize a new party — a great Northern, 
sectional party — upon the abolition platform, and carry on an offensive war 
against the local and domestic institutions of one half of the states of the Un- 
ion, under a banner which shall proclaim to the world that they claim for 



268 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

themselves the protection of the Constitution which they deny to those upon 
whose rights they make war — that the Constitution is binding upon their op- 
ponents, but not upon themselves — and that they hold themselves at liberty 
at all times to obey or resist it, as may best suit their purposes. Whatever 
name shall be given to this new political organization — whether it shall be 
called Whig, Abolition, Free-soil, or Know-nothing — it will still be the antag- 
onism of the Democratic party. Whatever may be the nature of the contest 
or the prospects of success, the Democracy of the nation must stand firmly 
by the Constitution as it is, yielding implicit obedience to all of its obliga- 
tions, and carrying into faithful execution all of its provisions. [Cheers and 
continued applause.] We must maintain the supremacy of the laws, put 
down resistance and violence wherever they may occur, and be ready to pun- 
ish the traitors whenever the overt act of treason shall be committed. [Tre- 
mendous cheers and applause.] 

Fellow-citizens, it has been said that in the bosom of this new political or- 
ganization there is a secret society bound together by the most solemn and 
terrible oaths — / know not its name — [Laughter. ] Inquire of whom you 
may, and the answer will be, "I don't know." [Roars of laughter.] And 
from all the information I can get, I am inclined to believe that "know- 
nothings" is their name. [Tremendous roars of laughter.] 

I was about to say, and I presume that the facts connected with your re- 
cent election in this city have furnished you with sufficient evidence upon 
the subject — I have been informed that there exists in the bosom of this new 
political organization a secret political society, bound together by the most 
terrible oaths, to proscribe every man, whether naturalized or not, or what- 
ever his political or religious sentiments, who had the misfortune to be born 
in a foreign clime, and, like our ancestors, driven by political or religious 
persecutions to flee from their native land and seek an asylum in America. 
Is there such an organization among you? [Cries of "Yes," "yes." "There 
is," "there is."] 

It is also said, and with how much truth you have much better opportuni- 
ties of knowing than I, for of this I know nothing [roars of laughter], that this 
secret society, which controls the nominations and directs the movements of 
the allied forces against the Democracy, binds its members by the most sol- 
emn obligations to proscribe every man who worships God according to the 
Roman Catholic faith, no matter to what race he may belong, or where he 
was born. [Cries "That is it," "They do."] It is also said that your re- 
cent city election was controlled by this society ; that your city government 
is now being managed under its auspices, and that the whole patronage of 
the city is distributed under its direction and in accordance with its principles 
of proscription. [Cries "That is so," "It is," "it is," from all sides.] 

This secret society, whose members profess to "know nothing" with the 
view of concealing their political designs, are said to have their branches and 
auxiliary societies in every city, town, and village, and to be in alliance with 
this great northern sectional party, which proclaims open war upon the in- 
stitutions of one half of the states and upon the Constitution of the United 
States. It is not surprising that a political society, whose efficient secret or- 
ganization enables them to conceal their plans while they hold out induce- 
ments of power and patronage to persons to assume their proscriptive obliga- 
tions, with the assurance that they can conceal the hand which strikes the 
blow, and thus avoid the odium and responsibility of the act, while they revel 
in the spoils of victory — I say it is not surprising that such a political organ- 
ization should prove formidable and even irresistible in its first efforts, when 
the specific objects and principles of the society were unknown to the com- 
munity, and before the people could be aroused to a just sense of their dan- 
ger. I speak of the society and of its principles of action here and wherev- 



KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBRASKAISM. 269 

er else they have triumphed in the recent elections ; for I am not aware that 
I am personally acquainted with any one man who has taken upon himself 
their obligations and enrolled his name upon their books. 

No principle of political action could have been devised more hostile to 
the genius of our institutions, more repugnant to the Constitution than those 
which are said to form the test of membership in this society of " Know- 
nothings." To proscribe a man in this country on account of his birthplace 
or religious faith is subversive of all our ideas and principles of civil and re- 
ligious freedom. It is revolting to our sense of justice and right. It is de- 
rogatory to the character of our forefathers, who were all emigrants from the 
Old World, some at an earlier and some at a later period. They once bore 
allegiance to the crowned heads of Europe. They, too, suffered the torments 
of civil and religious persecution, the fury of which tore them from their na- 
tive homes, and forced them to seek new ones on the shores of America. { 
Indeed, the settlement of this continent, the development of the thirteen 
united colonies, the Declaration of Independence, and the establishment of 
this glorious republic, may all be traced back to the accursed spirit of perse- 
cution. The Pilgrim fathers fled before their persecutors from England to 
Holland, and thence to Plymouth Rock, that they might be permitted to wor- 
ship God agreeably to their own faith. The same spirit compelled the Qua- 
kers to seek refuge in the wilderness under William Penn, whose name they 
imparted to the country they inhabited, and from which the good old com- 
monwealth of Pennsylvania has arisen in her glory and majesty. 

Your own beautiful city of Philadelphia stands a living monument, and I 
trust it may stand an eternal monument, of their gratitude to God for hav- 
ing removed them from the scenes of their troubles to a quiet and peaceful 
home on the banks of the Delaware, which, in the fullness of their hearts, 
and in faith that the spirit of religious persecution would never again reach 
them nor spring up among them, they called the " City of Brotherly 
Love." [Cheers and applause.] 

The Catholics, who in turn were oppressed and pursued by those who had 
felt the rod of their power, found an asylum upon the banks of the Chesa- 
peake, and called their little colony after their favorite Queen Mary, to which 
circumstance the State of Maryland owes her name and her origin. 

The gallant Cavaliers, who, after having persecuted the Pilgrims and driven 
them from the kingdom under Charles I., were in turn routed and pursued 
by Cromwell, with his invincible army of Roundheads, until they fled to Vir- 
ginia, where they established the Church of England. 

The Huguenots, who settled in South Carolina, were also refugees from 
religious persecution. Thus it will be seen that the different colonies were 
the representatives of the various religious sects in Europe, who had each 
been persecuted, and had nearly all persecuted each other in turn, until, by 
the strange vicissitudes of fortune, they were driven from their native land 
and forced to seek an asylum upon this continent, where each could be pro- 
tected in the worship of God in accordance with the faith he had embraced. 
In proportion as they became tolerant and just in matters of religion, they 
became liberal and enlightened in respect to the true principles of civil gov- 
ernment. When the Revolution broke out, in defense of their civil and po- 
litical rights each and all of these colonies rallied under the banner of their 
common country. The Revolution established their independence by con- 
verting the dependent colonies into distinct sovereign states, yet it was not 
until the adoption of the Constitution of the United States that their liber' 
ties were consolidated and placed on a firm and sure basis. In the Consti- 
tution it was provided that ' ' no religious test shall ever be required 

AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED 

States." [Immense applause.] 



2*70 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

This provision was adopted unanimously. It was the common ground of 
justice and equality, upon which all religious denominations could stand in 
harmony and security. It expressed in plain language the true principles of 
religious toleration, the correctness and necessity of which had been thorough- 
ly vindicated in the history and experience of each of the colonies. It was 
heartily concurred in by Protestant and Catholic — by Puritan and Cavalier 
— by Quaker and Huguenot — each and all of the religious sects and denom- 
inations agreed upon this great principle as a platform, a common ground 
upon which they and their descendants in all future time could and would 
stand in the bonds of brotherly affection. [Applause.] 

By another clause of the Constitution no man can hold any office under 
the government of the United States, or under any of the state governments, 
until he has subscribed an oath to support the Constitution of the United 
States. This oath must be taken, and ought to be kept, not only by presi- 
dents, and governors, and judges, but by the mayors of your cities and all 
their subordinates in office. [Tremendous cheers and applause.] 

Now, fellow-citizens, permit me to inquire, in all kindness, how can the 
members of this political society, called "Know-nothings," take upon them- 
selves a solemn oath by which they shall stand pledged to raise up a religious 
test as a qualification for office, in the very teeth of the Constitution, by pro- 
scribing men on account of their religious faith ? Will they excuse them- 
selves upon the ground that they did not know of this clause in the Constitu- 
tion? [Cheers and laughter.] 

Will they tell us that they did not knoic the history of their own country— 
that they did not know of the sufferings and persecutions to which their fa- 
thers had been subjected on account of their religious faith — that they did 
not know that the obligations and principles of their society were at war with 
the genius of our whole republican system and in direct conflict with the 
principles of the Constitution? [Loud cheering.] 

If they did not know these things, surely there was wisdom in calling them- 
selves "Know-nothings." [Tremendous cheers and roars of laughter.] 

Those who do not know should be made to learn and feel that the Consti- 
tution is the supreme law of the land ; that all men who live under it, and 
enjoy its protection, must yield implicit obedience to its requirements, in all 
its parts and provisions, whether they like them or not. [Cheers and con- 
tinued applause.] 

Their likes or dislikes have nothing to do with the question. We live 
under a government of laws, and the supremacy of the laws must be main- 
tained, no matter from what quarter or motive the resistance may come. 
[Great applause.] 

The equality of all the states under the Constitution, and the right of the 
people to decide for themselves what kind of local and domestic institutions 
they will have, are cardinal principles in the Democratic creed. [Loud and 
enthusiastic cheers.] 

To these fundamental propositions let me add another, which forms the 
corner-stone in the temple of our liberties. It is, that all men have an in- 
alienable right to worship God according to the dictates of their own con- 
science, and under our Constitution no man ought or can be proscribed on 
account of his birthplace or of his religious faith. [Loud cheers and ap- 
plause.] 

These are the issues which the Democratic party of the nation have to meet 
and maintain before the people in all the states. Let no consideration of 
partisan policy or temporary advantage induce us to swerve a hair's breadth 
from our principles. If we meet the questions fairly and directly, and fight 
the battle boldly, and should even suffer a temporary defeat, yet we will have 
the proud satisfaction of knowing that we have saved our honor at the same 
time that a glorious triumph awaits us in the future. [Applause.] 



KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBEASKAISM. 271 

Then, fellow-Democrats, let us stand by our arms and be ready to fight the 
allied forces of Abolitionism, Whigism, Nativeism, and religious intolerance, 
under whatever name and on whatever field they may present themselves. 
[Enthusiastic cheers and tremendous applause.] 

And if, after struggling as our forefathers struggled for centuries in their 
native land against civil and religious persecution, we and our children shall 
be finally borne down and trampled under the heel of despotism, we can still 
follow their example — flee to the wilderness, and find an asylum in Nebras- 
ka, where the principles of self-government have been firmly established in 
the organic act which recently passed Congress. 

This speech very naturally drew upon Mr. Douglas the en- 
mity of the zealous members of the order. It was the first 
blow aimed at them. It was the first invocation to the De- 
mocracy to stand by their principles and treat the Know-noth- 
ings as their political enemies. In the Western States the or- 
der made rapid progress. It formed the centre around which 
all and every description of political interest hostile to the 
Democratic party rallied. Though the Nebraska Bill had 
been supported by a majority of the Democrats in Congress, 
and had been approved by the administration of General 
Pierce, still no attempt had been made to constitute a support 
of it a test of Democracy. But those Democrats who were 
hostile to it, having united with the Abolitionists, Free-soilers, 
and Know-nothings upon a platform of the proscription of 
every supporter of the bill, its friends had, as a matter of ne- 
cessity, to rally to its support and to the support of its Con- 
gressional advocates. 

THE CHICAGO MOB OF 1854. 

Congress adjourned about the first of August. Mr. Douglas 
left Washington soon after, and reached his home in Chicago 
about the 25th. In the mean time there had been extensive 
preparations by the Know-nothings and their allies to prevent 
any appeal by him to the people, such as he had made in Phila- 
delphia. Some of the reverend gentlemen with whom he had 
had a controversy about their remonstrance took an active 
part in the matter. There was a thorough and complete or- 
ganization established not only in Chicago, but throughout all 
the northern part of Illinois, to meet him every where with 
personal insult, and, if possible, to prevent his being heard. 
After he had been in the city some clays, public notice was 
given that, on the night of the 1st of September, he would ad- 
dress his constituents at North Market Hall. The mayor of 



272 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the city, the Hon. I. L. Milikin, was invited and consented to 
preside. The announcement of his intention to speak was re- 
ceived with great excitement. The newspapers warned the 
public to be there, and not to allow him to deceive the people 
by his sophistries. One paper, appealing directly to the preju- 
dices of the Know-nothings, announced that Mr. Douglas had 
selected a body-guard of five hundred Irishmen, who, with 
arms in their hands, were to be present, and compel the people 
to silence while he spoke, and thus he would claim that they 
had, by not objecting, admitted his arguments and defense to 
be complete. Strange as it may seem that such a statement 
should obtain credence in an intelligent community, yet the 
fact is unquestionable. In a day or two after, another paper, 
hostile to Mr. Douglas, declared that there was a feverish senti- 
ment prevailing in the community indicating a season of vio- 
lence, and proved its assertion by citing the fact that every re- 
volver and pistol in the stores of the city had been sold, and 
that there were orders for a large number yet unfilled. 

The fact that violence was to take place at the meeting was 
daily impressed upon the public, but with consummate dexter- 
ity it was stated that Douglas intended to overawe the public 
by an armed demonstration. It is needless to say that this 
was utterly destitute of truth. All he asked, all he desired, 
was an orderly meeting, that he might be heard in explanation 
and defense of the Nebraska Bill. 

Under such circumstances as these assembled the meeting 
on that September evening. During the afternoon the flags 
of such shipping as was owned by the most bitter of the Fusion- 
ists were hung at half-mast ; at dusk the bells of numerous 
churches tolled with all the doleful solemnity that might be 
supposed appropriate for some impending calamity. As the 
evening closed in, crowds flocked to the place of meeting. At 
a quarter before eight o'clock Mr. Douglas commenced to ad- 
dress the multitude. The whole area in front of the building, 
and the street running east to Dearborn and west to Clark 
Street, were soon densely packed. The roofs of houses opposite, 
and windows, balconies, and every available standing-spot, were 
occupied. He had hardly commenced before he was hailed 
with a storm of hisses ; he paused until silence was compara- 
tively restored, when he told the meeting that he came there 
to address his constituents, and intended to be heard. He was 



KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBRASKAISM. 273 

instantly assailed by all manner of epithets and abuse. He 
stood his ground firmly, contesting with that maddened and 
excited crowd. His friends — and he had friends there, warm, 
devoted, and unyielding Democrats — were indignant, and were 
disposed to resent some of the most indecent outrages. Mr. 
Douglas appealed to them to be calm ; to leave him to deal 
with the mob before him. He denounced the violence exhib- 
ited as a preconcerted thing, and in defiance of yells, groans, 
cat-calls, and every insulting menace and threat, he read aloud, 
so that it was heard above the infernal din, a letter informing 
him that, if he dared to speak, he would be maltreated. 

We never saw such a scene before, and hope never to see 
the like again. What we have described is a pretty fair de- 
scription of what took place during that protracted struggle. 
Until ten o'clock he stood firm and unyielding, bidding the 
mob defiance, and occasionally getting in a word or two upon 
the general subject. It was the penalty for his speech in Phil- 
adelphia. It was the penalty for having made the first assault 
upon Know-nothingism. It was the penalty for having dared 
to assail an order including within its members a vast major- 
ity of the allied opposition of the Western States. We have 
conversed since then with men who were present at that mob ; 
with men who went there as members of the order, pledged 
to stand by and protect each other ; with men who were arm- 
ed to the teeth in anticipation of a scene of bloody violence, 
and they have assured us that nothing prevented bloodshed 
that night but the bold and defiant manner in which Douglas 
maintained his ground. Had he exhibited fear, he would not 
have commanded respect; had he been suppliant, he would 
have been spurned; had he been craven, and retreated, his 
party would in all probability have been assaulted with mis- 
siles, leading to violence in return. But, standing there before 
that vast mob, presenting a determined front and unyielding 
purpose, he extorted an involuntary admiration from those of 
his enemies who had the courage to engage in a personal en- 
counter ; and that admiration, while it could not overcome the 
purpose of preventing his being heard, protected him from 
personal violence. 

The motive, the great ruling reason for refusing him the 
privilege of being heard, was that, as he had in 1850 carried 
the judgment of the people captive into an endorsement of the 

M2 



274 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Fugitive Slave Law, so, if allowed to speak in 1854, he would 
at least rally all Democrats to his support by his defense of the 
Nebraska Bill. The combined fanatics of Chicago feared the 
power and effect of his argument in the presence and hearing 
of the people. They therefore resolved that he should not be 
heard. 

So far as this occasion was concerned the object was success- 
fully attained, and if there were any doubts as to the fact that 
the course agreed upon had been previously concerted, the ex- 
perience of the following few weeks served to remove all ques- 
tion on that subject. 

Mr. Douglas announced his intention to speak at several 
points in the state, there being an election for Congressmen 
and state treasurer then pending. Every where throughout 
the northern part of the state he was greeted upon his arrival 
by every possible indignity that could be offered, short of per- 
sonal violence. Burning effigies, effigies suspended by ropes, 
banners with all the vulgar mottoes and inscriptions that pas- 
sion and prejudice could suggest, were displayed at various 
points. Whenever he attempted to speak, the noisy demon- 
strations which had proved so successful in Chicago were at- 
tempted, but in no place did they succeed in preventing his be- 
ing heard. At Galena, Freeport, Waukegan, Woodstock, and 
other points in the very heart of the Abolition and Know-noth- 
ing portion of the state, he made strong, clear, and brilliant ad- 
dresses in defense of the great measure. He justified the re- 
peal of the Missouri restriction upon the same ground that he 
had justified the Compromise measures of 1850 — that it was 
neither a Pro-slavery nor an Anti-slavery measure — that it was 
a surrender and a final abandonment by Congress and the fed- 
eral government of any authority or claim of authority over 
the subject of slavery in the Territories ; and that it recognized 
in the people of the Territories, acting through their Legisla- 
tures, and through their state conventions, full, exclusive, and 
complete power to prohibit or introduce, to exclude or protect, 
African slavery within their respective Territorial limits. 

In 1854 he proclaimed that doctrine in the face of an excited 
Abolition mob, drawing from them the fiercest denunciations. 
In 1858 he proclaimed the same doctrine in the face of a mass 
meeting at the same place, and, for the first time in the history 
of the Nebraska Bill, it was discovered by those who preferred 



KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND ANTI-NEBRASKAISM. 275 

the election of Lincoln that Mr. Douglas was preaching a 
heresy ! 

It was not until late in the fall, and not until after he had 
become a candidate for Congress, that Mr. Lyman Trumbull 
raised the banner of Anti-Nebraskaisin, and put himself in open 
hostility to the Democratic party. A senatorial election was 
to take place at the approaching session, General Shields's term 
expiring March 4th, 1855. 

The previous Legislature had been largely Democratic, and 
the senators holding over, if they continued as Democrats, 
would, with those Democrats certain to be elected, secure a 
Democratic senator. The elections in Indiana had gone " Fu- 
sion" by forty or fifty thousand majority ; in Ohio by a major- 
ity reaching eighty thousand ; in Michigan and Wisconsin by 
majorities equally overwhelming. 

The candidates in Illinois for state treasurer were, James 
Miller, Whig, Abolition, Know-nothing, Anti-Nebraska, Fu- 
sion, and John Moore, Democrat. In November the election 
took place, resulting in the election to Congress of Richard- 
son, Harris, Allen, and Marshal, Democrats, and Washburne, 
Woodworth, Norton, Knox, and Trumbull, by the combination. 
The Democrats elected their candidate for state treasurer. 

In the Legislature the state of parties was not so clearly de- 
fined. In the House of Representatives, composed of seventy- 
five members, T. J. Turner (Fusion) was elected speaker, re- 
ceiving forty votes. In the Senate, composed of twenty-five 
members, the Democrats had seventeen members who had been 
elected as Democrats. Of those three, N. B. Judd, B. C. Cook, 
and J. M. Palmer, senators holding over, had got " tender-foot- 
ed" — that is, were Anti-Nebraska Democrats, whose consciences 
would not allow them to vote for General Shields, or any Ne- 
braska Democrat, and whose notions of political morality re- 
volted at the idea of voting for a Whig. 

The Legislature met in joint convention on the 8th of Feb- 
ruary, 1855, for the purpose of electing a senator of the United 
States to succeed General Shields, and the first ballot resulted 
—Shields (Democrat) 41, Ficklin (Dem.) 1, Denning (Dem.) 
1, Matteson (Dem.) 1. Total (Dem.), 44. Abraham Lincoln 
45, L. Trumbull 5, Ogden (Fusion) 1, Kellogg (Fusion) 1, 
Koerner (Fusion) 2, Edwards (Fusion) 1. Total, 55 — one va- 
cancy. On the seventh vote Lincoln received 38, Matteson 



276 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

44, Trumbull 9, Shields 1, M'Clernand 1, Koerner 1. On the 
ninth Matteson received 47, Lincoln 15, Trumbull 35; and on 
the tenth Trumbull was elected, receiving 51 votes, Matteson 
47, Williams 1 — one Whig, Mr. Waters, refusing to take the 
apostate Democrat at the dictation of the men who had sacri- 
ficed Lincoln. 

Resolutions upon the subject of slavery were introduced 
into both branches of the Legislature at that session, though 
no series received the concurrent approval of both branches. 
Trumbull having been elected to the Senate, his district chose 
the Hon. Robert Smith (Dem.) to fill the vacancy. 

After the election, Mr. Douglas was invited by his political 
friends in Chicago to partake of a public dinner, and he accepted 
the invitation. The 9th of November was selected for the time, 
and on that evening some two hundred gentlemen sat down 
to a dinner at the Tremont House. In response to a compli- 
mentary sentiment, Mr. Douglas addressed the company in a 
very graceful, eloquent, and finished speech. It is part of the 
history of his life, was a noble vindication of his conduct, and 
was substantially the address which he would have made to 
the people of Chicago in September, had he not been prevented 
by the mob. Want of space prevents its insertion here. It 
was printed in pamphlet form, and, though it claimed for the 
people of the Territories full legislative control over the subject 
of slavery within their Territorial limits — a control limited only 
by the Constitution — no word of dissent was heard from any 
Democratic quarter as to the doctrines therein asserted. 

A few days after this festive occasion Mr. Douglas left 
Chicago on a visit to Louisiana, and subsequently, when at 
Washington City, was invited to address a public meeting at 
Richmond, Virginia. At the South there was no opposition 
to the Nebraska Bill, but the great majority of the old oppo- 
nents of the Democracy had united under the new and myste- 
rious command of the Know-nothing order. Mr. Douglas ad- 
dressed a very large meeting at the "African Church," in Rich- 
mond, in defense of Democratic principles and in reprobation 
of the intolerant creed of the Know-nothings. Of this speech, 
which was remarkable for its general ability, one passage, in 
which he addressed a most impressive warning against Ameri- 
can citizens rashly and inconsiderately binding themselves in 
political matters by solemn oaths, attracted universal attention 



THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 277 

by its great applicability. The illustration employed, and the 
application made of it, has not been surpassed by any thing 
ever said upon the subject. He cited Herod's rash oath under 
which he bound himself to the death of John the Baptist. Mr. 
Douglas applied this with great effect to the hasty, inconsid- 
erate, yet solemn and sweeping obligations assumed by the 
members of the Know-nothing order. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 



In January, 1855, the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, 
having had for some years the subject of affording to the mem- 
bers of the Supreme Court such relief as would enable them 
to perform fully their high duty as the court of last resort in 
the Union, reported a bill having in view that end. The bill 
reported by that committee discharged the justices of the Su- 
preme Court from all circuit duty, allowing them, however, 
the same jurisdiction and powers now vested in them by law 
within any of the circuits in which they may reside, in allow- 
ing writs of habeas corpus and of error, granting injunctions, 
and generally all such powers as may be exercised under ex- 
isting law at chambers and out of term. Instead of one term, 
there were to be two terms of the Supreme Court annually. 
The bill continued the existing judicial districts, but provided 
for their arrangement into eleven circuits — viz.: 1. Maine, 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island ; 2. New 
York, Connecticut, and Vermont; 3. Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey; 4. Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; 5. North and 
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida ; 6. Alabama, Mississip- 
pi, and Louisiana ; 7. Arkansas and Texas ; 8. Tennessee, Ken- 
tucky, and Missouri ; 9. Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan ; 10. Illi- 
nois, Wisconsin, and Iowa ; 11. California. The bill provided 
for the appointment of eleven circuit judges, one for each of 
these circuits, at a salary of $4000 per annum each ; the cir- 
cuit judges to perform the circuit duties now performed by the 
justices of the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Douglas, who had given to the subject considerable at- 
tention, proposed, on the 5th of January, when the bill came 
up, a substitute, involving a new plan, or adapting the exist- 



278 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ing system to the present exigencies and wants of the country. 
He opposed most strenuously the separation of the Supreme 
Court judges from the people — from intercourse with the bar 
and courts throughout the Union. His plan continued the ex- 
isting District Courts, and conferred on them all the powers 
and jurisdiction now possessed by the Circuit Courts. He then 
proposed to establish nine judicial circuits, as follows: 1. The 
six New England States; 2. New York, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania; 3. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North 
Carolina ; 4. South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida ; 
5. Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas ; 6. Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana; 1. Illinois, Michigan, Wiscon- 
sin, Iowa, and Minnesota ; 8. Missouri, New Mexico, Kansas, 
and Nebraska ; 9. California, Oregon, Washington, and Utah. 
The district judges within those districts to assemble once in 
each year, with one judge of the Supreme Court to preside, 
and to hear all appeals from the several District Courts within 
that circuit. The several judges of the Supreme Court to at- 
tend these circuits once in each year, and to alternate, so as 
that each judge in turn should attend all the circuits. In the 
debate on this question, Mr. Douglas explained, in his peculiar- 
ly forcible manner, the practical workings of this plan proposed 
by him. He said : 

I have been induced, Mr. President, to offer this substitute from a convic- 
tion that the plan proposed by the Judiciary Committee will not answer the 
purposes which they have in view, and will not remedy the evils which they 
desire to correct. They propose to make a separate Supreme Court, with no 
other duties than those which are imposed upon the Supreme Court of the 
United States sitting at Washington alone. Here I differ in toto with the 
committee. I think the Supreme Court ought to have other jurisdiction. I 
think it is for the good of the country, and for the good of that court, that 
its judges should be required to go into the country, hold courts in different 
localities, and mingle with the local judges and with the bar. I think that 
if the judges of that court be released from all duties outside the city of 
Washington, and stay here the whole year round, they will become, as a 
senator remarked to me a moment ago, mere paper judges. I think they 
will lose that weight of authority in the country which they ought to have 
just in proportion as they lose their knowledge of the local legislation, and 
of the practice and proceedings of the courts below. I believe, therefore, 
that the theory of the original plan on which our judiciary system was form- 
ed was right. In consequence of the increase of the judicial business of the 
country, some modification of that plan has become necessary in order to 
preserve the same principle, and render it applicable to our present condition. 
The plan which I propose in this substitute is simply this: that there shall 
be no new judges appointed, but the duties now performed by the District 
and Circuit Courts of the United Stat3S in each state shall hereafter be per- 
formed by the district judge in that state. According to it, the district judge 



THE FEDEEAL JUDICIARY. 279 

will hold the District and the Circuit Courts at the same time. Both will be 
open at the same time ; the record of each will be before him, in the same 
manner as in a court of law with chancery jurisdiction. As both courts are 
open at the same time, the judge may take up a case on the law docket or 
the chancery docket, as may be convenient ; so, according to my plan, the 
district judge could take up a case on the docket of either the District or the 
Circuit Court, both courts being held by the same judge. Then, having re- 
leased the judges of the Supreme Court from the necessity of going into ev- 
ery district in each state — and where there are three districts in a state, as in 
Tennessee and other states, that must be a great labor — the question is, how 
much of this local duty can we devolve upon them without depriving them 
of the opportunity of performing all their duties at the seat of government ? 
It occurred to me that this point could be settled in the manner which I have 
proposed in my amendment ; that is, to divide the whole United States into 
nine judicial circuits, and provide that there shall be held, once a year, in 
each of those circuits, a Court of Appeals, to be composed of the district judge 
of each district within the circuit, together with one of the judges of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, who should preside. By way of illustra- 
tion, suppose the New England States should be made one of the circuits ; 
there are, in New England, six United States District Courts, and the Court 
of Appeals would therefore be composed of these six district judges, with one 
judge of the Supreme Court of the United States presiding, which would 
make a court of seven judges. I provide for appeals to be taken directly from 
the District Court to this Court of Appeals, and then from the Court of Ap- 
peals to the Supreme Court of the United States, with certain restrictions. 
This illustration would apply to each of the other nine districts, comprehend- 
ing all the states and all the Territories of the Union. This system would, 
it seems to me, have very great advantages, and would remedy several evils 
which we have known to grow up under our present system. You now find 
that in one district the rules of practice are one way, and in another district 
entirely different. One district judge decides a controverted principle in one 
way, and another in another way. If all the district judges in a circuit could 
come together once a year to review their own decisions, it would tend to 
bring about uniformity of thought and uniformity of practice within those 
districts. To secure this object, my substitute provides that the Court of Ap- 
peals in each circuit shall prescribe the rules of practice for the District 
Courts within the circuit. You thus infuse uniformity into all the District 
Courts within the same circuit, acting under the same rules, and the conse- 
quence would be that very few appeals would be taken from the Court of Ap- 
peals to the Supreme Court of the United States. I propose also to allow an 
appeal from the District Court to the Court of Appeals in every case in which 
it is now allowed by law from the District to the Circuit Courts ; and to allow 
appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, but to fix a higher 
sum than is now required to be the amount in controversy to entitle the par- 
ties to an appeal from a Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, so that small 
cases may stop at the Courts of Appeal, and none but cases involving large 
amounts and important principles be carried to the Supreme Court of the 
United States. Then, sir, with a view of remedying other evils which may 
now exist, I haA*e introduced another principle, derived from the judicial sys- 
tem of some of the states of the Union. It is what is known as the rotary 
principle ; that is to say, inasmuch as one of the judges of the Supreme Court 
is to preside in each of the Courts of Appeals once a year in each circuit 
throughout the United States, I require them to rotate ; so that if the chief 
justice presides in district No. 1 this year, he may next year go to district 
No. 2, and next to district No. 3, and so on until he come to district No. 
9, at San Francisco. Then, the succeeding year, the next judge highest in 



280 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

commission begins at district No. 1, goes to the second, and the third, and 
all the other districts. The consequence of this would be that a judge of 
the Supreme Court would not preside in the same circuit over a Court of Ap- 
peals more than once in nine years. In that way the foundation of com- 
plaints, which sometimes are gotten up — probably unjustly, but yet none the 
less mischievous for being unjust — that there is a coterie around the judge 
when he goes every year to the same circuit, would be destroyed. Again, if 
a judge goes to the New England circuit one year, to the Middle States the 
next year, then through the Southern States, then to the Western States, and 
finally to California, he becomes more familiar with the local judicial system 
of the whole Union ; and inasmuch as the Supreme Court is the final Court 
of Appeals from all decisions of the lower courts throughout the land, its 
judges ought to be familiar, so far as it is possible for them to become famil- 
iar, with the modes of proceeding in the various sections of the Union, with 
the local legislation, and the local laws of all parts of the country. Now, sir, 
without meaning any disrespect to any one, but for the purpose of illustrating 
the practical operation of the principle, I trust I may be permitted to say that 
I do not think it would be the slightest injury to Judge Curtis, of Boston, after 
having practiced law all his life in New England, to hold court for one term 
in Charleston, South Carolina, and then in New Orleans, and again in Chica- 
go, and then in San Francisco. I think a system which required that would 
liberalize the mind, elevate the train of thought, and expand the range of 
knowledge of any judge, no matter how exalted he might be. On the other 
hand, I do not think it would do the slightest harm to Judge Campbell, of 
Mobile, to send him to Boston to hold court, and let him mingle with the 
people of New England, and the New England bar and judiciary, and be- 
come acquainted with the New England character and New England juris- 
prudence. Let him go the round until he gets back, at the end of nine years, 
to his own circuit where he resides, and I think he would be liberalized, and 
improved, and benefited by the trip. The same remark would apply to each 
one of the judges. They would then have a degree of knowledge of the sys- 
tems in each state, and of the local jurisprudence of each part of the coun- 
try, which would be very valuable to them. They would thus become ac- 
quainted with the bar all over the Union, and with the sentiments and feel- 
ings of the bar, operating upon the rules of practice and of the rules of court, 
and would acquire a knowledge which never could be acquired in any other 
way. Entertaining these opinions, I believe that the best system we could 
adopt would be to take the present system as it is, adding no new judges, or 
at least not more than one, if an additional judge should be necessaiy, and I 
doubt whether one is ; leave the district judges to perform their own duties 
in the District and Circuit Courts of the United States ; constitute the Court 
of Appeals which I have proposed, and allow an appeal from them to the Su- 
preme Court of the United States. Thus the whole system is harmonious. 
This plan would never render it necessary, in any expansion of the country, 
no matter how great, to increase the number of judges on the bench of the 
Supreme Court of the United States ; but when we bring other states into the 
Union, or organize other Territories, all we shall have to do will be to attach 
one of those new states or Territories to one of the existing nine judicial cir- 
cuits. Then this system is complete. It will adapt itself to any expansion 
of our country, to any increase of business in all time to come, and I believe 
it will be harmonious in its action. 

I have not been able to look into my proposition since I drew it up, and 
presented it informally at the last session. I did not expect it to come up 
to-day, and therefore can not go fully into all its details ; but there is a special 
provision in it which I think I ought to notice. In order to give ample com- 
pensation to the judges of the Supreme Court for the extra labor which would 



THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 281 

be imposed on them by my proposition, in addition to their duties on the 
Supreme bench, I have proposed to allow them the per diem and mileage of 
members of Congress while they are absent as presiding judges in the Courts 
of Appeals. If a judge should go only from here to Boston to hold court, 
the mileage would be but small. If he should go to New Orleans, it would 
be a very respectable sum ; and if he should go to San Francisco, it would 
be quite a little fortune. I think such a provision would really improve the 
health of many of the judges, so that they could take a trip to San Francisco 
without complaining that they would suffer very much by it, though they 
might find it very unhealthy if some such provision were not made. I also 
believe, as a matter of justice, that they should receive mileage in propor- 
tion to their travel. I do not say whether or not the present salary is suffi- 
cient. If it is not, increase it. But I say, in addition to whatever salary 
you award to them as judges of the Supreme Court, you should allow them 
a per diem while holding the appellate courts, and the mileage of members 
of Congress while traveling over the country to reach the sittings of those 
courts. I propose to apply the same principle to the district judges when 
they leave their respective districts, and go to a central point in the circuit, 
to sit in the Court of Appeals. I have thus stated briefly the chief provisions 
of the substitute which I have offered. It has occurred to me that by this 
proposition we could avoid many of the evils which we are likely to encoun- 
ter by the adoption of the system reported by the Committee on the Judi- 
ciary. I have great reluctance at any time to make a radical and sudden 
change in the judiciary of the country. If there is any department of this 
government for which I have a higher reverence than any other — if there is 
any department in the purity and stability of which I place higher hopes than 
any other, it is the judiciary. I would not wish to make any such sudden 
and radical change in that system as would infuse into it too many new men 
at one time. I would allow that infusion of new blood and new life to come 
into it by the course of nature, simply by filling vacancies when they may oc- 
cur from time to time. Sir, I think it is unwise to make a change by which 
all the Circuit Courts of the Union shall at once be held by new men, perhaps 
politicians, perhaps lawyers who have never been upon the bench. It is a 
thing which ought to be done gradually, so that there shall always be a ma- 
jority of experienced judges upon each of the benches of the country. These 
views, sir, have operated on my mind. I have doubted whether the system 
proposed by the Judiciary Committee could be adopted, and if adopted, I 
have had still more serious doubts whether it would remedy the evils intend- 
ed to be remedied by those who have brought it forward. But, sir, not being 
a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have felt great reluctance in inter- 
posing my voice on this question. My duties have been such that I have not 
been able to give it that consideration which the importance of a subject of this 
magnitude would require ; but still, having these firm convictions on my own 
mind, I have felt that I owed it to the country, and especially to the bench 
with which I have been associated for a small portion of my life, to make 
these suggestions, in order that the Senate may pass their judgment upon 
them, and make such disposition of the subject as they shall think proper. 

Mr. Pratt having asked some explanation : 

Mr. Douglas. I am aware that I was, perhaps, somewhat confused in the 
brief explanation which I gave this morning, as the matter came up unex- 
pectedly, and therefore omitted many points which ought to have been fully 
explained. I have turned my attention, however, to the points to which the 
senator from Maryland has adverted. It occurred to me that the duties of 
the Supreme Court of the United States would be materially lessened by the 
plan which I have proposed in this respect ; I have thought that by having a 



282 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Court of Appeals, composed of six or seven judges in the respective circuits, 
one of the justices of the Supreme Court presiding, there would be a much 
less number of appeals taken to the Supreme Court of the United States than 
there is under the present system. Under the existing system, an appeal 
from a District Court to a Circuit Court of the United States is a mere mock- 
ery. I do not speak offensively ; but I say, in its practical effect it is a mock- 
ery, and for this reason : a case is first tried before the district judge, and 
then an appeal is taken to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court is composed 
of that same district judge and one judge of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. If, when the case comes up for hearing before the Circuit Court, the 
district judge is of the same opinion that he was before, as he probably would 
be, and the circuit judge differs from him, there would then be no decision, 
and the case would be certified to the Supreme Court of the United States 
to decide between them. If, on the contrary, the circuit judge should agree 
with the judge below, then there would be a decision, but the appeal would 
have been useless, for it merely led to the affirmation of the opinion below. 
The consequence is, that whenever there is a difference of opinion between 
the circuit judge and the district judge, the case is certified to the Supreme 
Court, and thus you multiply the causes on the docket of the Supreme Court 
without having accomplished any benefit by the appeal through the inter- 
mediate court. But, according to my plan, instead of appealing from the 
judge below to himself and one other, you appeal to himself and probably 
six others, and one of those six a judge of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. If they should reverse a decision unanimously, the chances are that 
the matter would stop there. If they should be nearly equally divided on a 
question involving a new or intricate principle of law, or a vast amount of 
property, the case would probably be appealed. I think, then, that in the 
practical operation of this system, there would be very few appeals to the Su- 
preme Court of the United States in comparison to the number there is now. 
Again, sir, the system I have submitted will diminish the duties of the judges 
of the Supreme Court in another respect. Judge M'Lean, for example, is 
the judge assigned to the Northwestern Circuit, in which I reside. He is ex- 
pected to attend to his duties in the Supreme Court here at Washington, and 
also to preside twice a year in the Circuit Court in Ohio ; twice in Indiana ; 
four times in Illinois, there being two districts there, and twice in Michigan. 
There are, then, ten terms which he is expected to hold in the courts below 
in one year, besides attending to his duties in the Supreme Court. I propose, 
instead of his holding ten terms of the Circuit Courts in each year, he shall 
attend but one term of the Court of Appeals of a particular circuit. It strikes 
me that this would materially diminish his duties. If the term of the Court 
of Appeals should last for three months — and certainly it could hardly be ex- 
pected to take up that much time — he would still have nine months for at- 
tendance on the Supreme Court here. My substitute requires the Court of 
Appeals to be held in the nine circuits on the same clay — say the first Monday 
in June or the first Monday in May. That being the case, the judges of 
the Supreme Court would arrange their terms so as to allow them to disperse 
to their respective circuits at the same time, finish their circuits, and get back 
here at the same time. I take it for granted, therefore, that, instead of being 
limited, as they now are, to two or three months every year for their duties 
here, the judges of the Supreme Court, under my plan, would have at least 
nine months to be at Washington, after performing all their duties in the 
different circuits. In this way, by giving them eight, or nine, or ten months 
to be here, instead of three or four months, for their duties in the Supreme 
Court, and by diminishing the amount of their circuit labors in the mode I 
have mentioned, they would be enabled to perform all their duties, and have 
probably one half the year to themselves. 



THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 283 

The bill was debated several days ; but there was such a di- 
versity of opinion in the Senate as to the principle of the orig- 
inal bill — to exempt the judges of the Supreme Court from 
circuit duty — that the friends of the bill abandoned it. Before 
it was disposed of, however, a vote was taken on Mr. Douglas's 
amendment, and it was rejected — yeas 19, nays 26. Those 
voting for it were Atchison, Benjamin, Bright, Cass, Clay, 
Clayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Fes- 
senden, Foot, Geyer, Gwin, Jones of Iowa, Sebastian, Shields, 
Stuart, Thomson of New Jersey, and Wade. The subject has 
never been acted upon definitely since then. 

Perhaps no public man in the Union has labored more earn- 
estly and indefatigably in the Senate, in his written papers, and 
in his addresses before the people, than Mr. Douglas, to sustain 
and defend the supreme judicial authority of the federal ju- 
diciary. He has had to meet and encounter the misrepresenta- 
tions of the Dred Scott decision, and has had to labor hard, 
yet willingly and successfully, to defend that decision to its 
fullest extent before the people of the Northwest. One of the 
charges made against him in 1858 was that he had conspired 
with Judge Taney in having that decision made. While he de- 
fended the venerable chief justice from the accusation of con- 
spiracy, Mr. Douglas endorsed and approved that decision with- 
out equivocation or reservation. Throughout all his speeches 
will be found a broad emphatic approval of that decision, and 
of a purpose on all occasions to submit to and abide by what- 
ever decision that court may make upon questions of construc- 
tion of the Constitution. 

In a speech delivered at Springfield June 12, 1857, Mr. 
Douglas thus referred to the Supreme Court and the Dred 
Scott decision : 

"That we are steadily and rapidly approaching that result I can not doubt, 
for the slavery issue has already dwindled down into the narrow limits cov- 
ered by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred 
Scott case. The moment that decision was pronounced, and before the opin- 
ions of the court could be published and read by the people, the newspaper 
press, in the interest of a powerful political party in this country, began to 
pour forth torrents of abuse and misrepresentations not only upon the de- 
cision, but upon the character and motives of the venerable chief justice and. 
his illustrious associates on the bench. The character of Chief Justice Taney, 
and his associate judges who concurred with him, require no eulogy — no vin- 
dication from me. They are endeared to the people of the United States by 
their eminent public services— venerated for their great learning, wisdom, 
and experience — and beloved for the spotless purity of their characters and 



284 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

their exemplary lives. The poisonous shafts of partisan malice will fall 
harmless at their feet, while their judicial decisions will stand in all future 
time, a proud monument to their greatness, the admiration of the good and 
wise, and a rebuke to the partisans of faction and lawless violence. If, un- 
fortunately, any considerable portion of the people of the United States shall 
so far forget their obligations to society as to allow partisan leaders to array 
them in violent resistance to the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal 
on earth, it will become the duty of all the friends of order and constitutional 
government, without reference to past political differences, to organize them- 
selves and marshal their forces under the glorious banner of the Union, in 
vindication of the Constitution and the supremacy of the laws over the ad- 
vocates of faction and the champions of violence. To preserve the Constitu- 
tion inviolate, and vindicate the supremacy of the laws, is the first and highest 
duty of every citizen of a free republic. The peculiar merit of our form of 
government over all others consists in the fact that the law, instead of the 
arbitrary will of a hereditary prince, prescribes, defines, and protects all our 
rights. In this country the law is the will of the people, embodied and ex- 
pressed according to the forms of the Constitution. The courts are the tri- 
bunals prescribed by the Constitution, and created by the authority of the 
people, to determine, expound, and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists 
the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our 
whole republican system of government — a blow which, if successful, would 
place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and vi- 
olence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States— in a matter, like the points decided in the Died 
Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution — 
shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct 
and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution — 
the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws." 



CHAPTER XIII. 

KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 

Under the operation of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the gov- 
ernments provided for the two Territories were in due time 
erected. That established in Nebraska was put in operation, 
and has been conducted ever since with as little trouble, as 
little excitement, as little distraction at home or throughout 
the Union as would be expected from the organization of a 
new county in Virginia or Illinois. Not so with Kansas. 
From the first day of its establishment down to the present 
Kansas has been the theatre of fearful strife, involving blood- 
shed upon her plains, the formation of treasonable operations 
there and in other places, and to some extent, at times, the 
substitution of irresponsible anarchy for legal and constitu- 
tional government. 

The entire history of Kansas difficulties formed a leading 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 285 

question during the session of Congress commencing in De- 
cember, 1855, and Mr. Douglas took an active and leading 
part in the eventful chapter of Congressional action upon her 
affairs. His reports and speeches at that session contain of 
themselves the best as well as the most concise written nar- 
rative not only of what took place in Congress, but of what 
happened in the unfortunate Territory. 

The House of Representatives having been unable to elect a 
speaker, the President of the United States, without waiting 
for the usual notice of the organization of the houses, and their 
readiness to receive any communication from him, on the 31st 
of December sent in his usual message. He thus referred to 
affairs in Kansas : 

"In the Territory of Kansas there have been acts prejudicial to good order, 
but as yet none have occurred under circumstances to justify the interposition 
of the federal executive. That could only be in case of obstruction to federal 
law, or of organized resistance to Territorial law, assuming the character of 
insurrection, which, if it should occur, it would be my duty promptly to over- 
come and suppress. I cherish the hope, however, that the occurrence of any 
such untoward event will be prevented by the sound sense of the people of 
the Territory, who, by its organic law, possessing the right to determine their 
own domestic institutions, are entitled, while deporting themselves peacefully, 
to the free exercise of that right, and must be protected in the enjoyment of 
it, without interference on the part of the citizens of any of the states." 

On the 24th of January President Pierce sent a special mes- 
sage to Congress upon Kansas affairs. He thus expressed and 
defined his construction of the purposes, intents, and effect of 
the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He said : 

" The act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas was a man- 
ifestation of the legislative opinion of Congress on two great points of con- 
stitutional construction : one, that the designation of the boundaries of a new 
Territory, and provision for its political organization, and administration as 
a Territory, are measures which of right fall within the powers of the general 
government ; and the other, that the inhabitants of any such Territory, con- 
sidered as an inchoate state, are entitled, in the exercise of self-government, 
to determine for themselves what shall be their own domestic institutions, 
subject only to the Constitution and the laws duly enacted by Congress under 
it, and to the power of the existing states to decide, according to the pro- 
visions and principles of the Constitution, at what time the Territory shall be 
received as a state into the Union. Such are the great political rights which 
are solemnly declared and affirmed by that act." 

The President called attention to the various difficulties that 
had occurred in Kansas, and also the attempt to put the Tope- 
ka state government in operation as the government of Kan- 
sas — to override and exclude the existing Territorial govern- 
ment. He recommended the passage of a law authorizing the 



286 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

people of Kansas, whenever they, might desire it, and were suf- 
ficiently numerous to constitute a state, to elect delegates to a 
convention for the formation of a state government, prepara- 
tory to their admission into the Union as a state. The mes- 
sage was referred to the Committee on Territories. 

Mr. Douglas, in the mean time, was detained at Cleveland, 
where, and at Terre Haute, he had been suffering intensely 
with a bronchial affection. So protracted was his illness that 
he was not able to proceed to Washington until February, on 
the 11th of which month he appeared in the Senate. 

On the 18th a large number of documents, called for by a 
resolution of the Senate, were received and referred to the 
Territorial Committee. 

On the 12th of March Mr. Douglas made his elaborate and 
celebrated report upon Kansas matters, and upon the powers 
of Congress over the Territories as political communities. The 
report, and the speech which he delivered a few days later, are 
in themselves the most complete and concise history of Kansas 
affairs up to that time. The report was ordered to be printed, 
and a motion to print extra copies was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Printing, it being stated and understood that the 
debate should take place on the bills when reported during the 
following week. 

However, when the Committee on Printing made their re- 
port a day or two after, Mr. Trumbull availed himself of the 
occasion to deliver a speech in review of the report. Mr. 
Douglas was absent at the time, but, hearing that his colleague 
was making a speech, went to the Senate, and at its conclusion 
a sharp personal debate took place respecting this proceeding 
by Mr. Trumbull. Mr. Douglas likened it to the proceedings 
on the part of Messrs. Chase and Sumner in 1854, when a de- 
lay was asked in the consideration of the Nebraska Bill, during 
which those who had asked the delay issued an address mis- 
representing the character of the bill and the motives of its 
authors. 

On Monday, March 1 7th, Mr. Douglas reported " a bill to 
authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a Con- 
stitution and state government preparatory to their admission 
into the Union when they have the requisite population." 

On the 20th he addressed the Senate in support of the bill, 
and upon the general questions embraced in the report. We 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 287 

select from the report some extracts referring to very import- 
ant points, particularly that portion wherein the power of Con- 
gress to establish Territorial governments is considered as a 
necessity arising in the exercise of the power to admit new 
states. The report says : 

Your committee deem this an appropriate occasion to state briefly, but dis- 
tinctly, the principles upon which new states may be admitted and Territories 
organized under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. 

The Constitution (section 3, article 4) provides that "new states may be 
admitted by the Congress into this Union." 

Section 8, article 1 : " Congress shall have power to make all laws which 
shall be necessai'y and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing pow- 
ers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of* the 
United States, or in any department or office thereof." 

10th amendment : " The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states re- 
spectively, or to the people." 

A state of the federal Union is a sovereign power, limited only by the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

The limitations which that instrument has imposed are few, specific, and 
uniform — applicable alike to all the states, old and new. There is no au- 
thority for putting a restriction upon the sovereignty of a new state which the 
Constitution has not placed on the original states. Indeed, if such a restric- 
tion could be imposed on any state, it would instantly cease to be a state 
within the meaning of the federal Constitution, and, in consequence of the 
inequality, would assimilate to the condition of a province or dependency. 
Hence equality among all the states of the Union is a fundamental principle 
in our federative system — a principle embodied in the Constitution, as the 
basis upon which the American Union rests. 

African slavery existed in all the colonies, under the sanction of the Brit- 
ish government, prior to the Declaration of Independence. When the Con- 
stitution of the United States was adopted, it became the supreme-daw and 
bond of union between twelve slaveholding states and one non-slaveholdi'ng 
state ; each state reserved the right to decide the question of slavery for it- 
self — to continue it as a domestic institution as long as it pleased, and to 
abolish it when it chose. 

In pursuance of this reserved right, six of the original slaveholding states 
have since abolished and prohibited slavery within their limits respectively, 
without consulting Congress or their sister states, while the other six have re- 
tained and sustained it as a domestic institution, which, in their opinion, had 
become so firmly ingrafted on their social systems that the relation between 
the master and slave could not be dissolved with safety to either. In the 
mean time, eighteen new states have been admitted into the Union, in obedi- 
ence to the federal Constitution, on an equal footing with the original states, 
including, of course, the right of each to decide the question of slavery for it- 
self. In deciding this question, it has so happened that nine of these new 
states have abolished and prohibited slavery, while the other nine have re- 
tained and regulated it. That these new states had at the time of their ad- 
mission, and still retain, an equal right, under the federal Constitution, with 
the original states, to decide all questions of domestic policy for themselves, 
including that of African slavery, ought not to be seriously questioned, and 
certainly can not be successfully controverted. 

They are all subject to the same supreme law, which, by the consent of 
each, constitutes the only limitation upon their sovereign authority. 



288 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Since we find the right to admit new states enumerated among the powers 
expressly delegated in the Constitution, the question arises, Whence does Con- 
gress derive authority to organize temporary governments for the Territories 
preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the 
original states ? Your committee are not prepared to adopt the reasoning 
which deduces the power from that other clause of the Constitution which 
says, 

"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United 
States." 

The language of this clause is much more appropriate when applied to 
property than to persons. It would seem to have been employed for the pur- 
pose of conferring upon Congress the power of disposing of the public lands 
and other property belonging to the United States, and to make all needful rules 
and regulations for that purpose, rather than to govern the people who might 
purchase those lands from the United States and become residents thereon. 
The word " territory" was an appropriate expression to designate that large 
area of public lands of which the United States had become the owner by 
virtue of the Revolution, and the cession by the several states. The addition- 
al words, "or other property belonging to the United States," clearly show 
that the term "territory" was used in its ordinary geographical sense to 
designate the public domain, and not as descriptive of the whole body of the 
people, constituting a distinct political community, who have no representa- 
tion in Congress, and consequently no voice in making the laws upon which 
all their rights and liberties would depend, if it were conceded that Congress 
had the general and unlimited power to make all " needful rules and regu- 
lations concerning" their internal affairs and domestic concerns. It is under 
this clause of the Constitution, and from this alone, that Congress derives 
authority to provide for the surveys of the public lands, for securing pre-emp- 
tion rights to actual settlers, for the establishment of land-offices in the sev- 
eral states and Territories, for exposing the lands to private and public sale, 
for issuing patents and confirming titles, and, in short, for making all need- 
ful rules and regulations for protecting and disposing of the public domain 
and other property belonging to the United States. 

These needful rules and regulations may be embraced, and usually are 
found, in general laws applicable alike to states and Territories wherever the 
United States may be the owner of the lands or other property to be regulated 
or disposed of. It can make no difference, under this clause of the Consti- 
tution, whether the "territory, or other property belonging to the United 
States," shall be situated in Ohio or Kansas, in Alabama or Minnesota, in 
California or Oregon ; the power of Congress to make needful rules and regu- 
lations is the same in the states and Territories, to the extent that the title is 
vested in the United States. Inasmuch as the right of legislation in such 
cases rests exclusively upon the fact of ownership, it is obvious it can extend 
only to the tracts of land to which the United States possess the title, and 
must cease in respect to each tract the instant it becomes private property by 
purchase from the United States. It will scarcely be contended that Con- 
gress possesses the power to legislate for the people of those states in which 
public lands may be located, in respect to their internal affairs and domestic 
concerns, merely because the United States may be so fortunate as to own a 
portion of the territory and other property within the limits of those states. 
Yet it should be borne in mind that this clause of the Constitution confers 
upon Congress the same power to make needful rules and regulations in the 
states as it does in the Territories, concerning the territory or other property 
belonging to the United States. 

In view of these considerations, your committee are not prepared to affirm 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 289 

that Congress derives authority to institute governments for the people of the 
Territories from that clause of the Constitution which confers the right to 
make needful rules and regulations concerning the territory or other proper- 
ty belonging to the United States ; much less can we deduce the power from 
any supposed necessity, arising outside of the Constitution, and not provided 
for in that instrument. The federal government is one of delegated and 
limited powers, clothed with no rightful authority which does not result di- 
rectly and necessarily from the Constitution. Necessity, when experience 
shall have clearly demonstrated its existence, may furnish satisfactory rea- 
sons for enlarging the authority of the federal government, by amendments 
to the Constitution, in the mode prescribed in that instrument, but can not 
afford the slightest excuse for the assumption of powers not delegated, and 
which, by the tenth amendment, are expressly "reserved to the states re- 
spectively, or to the people." Hence, before the power can be safely exer- 
cised, the right of Congress to organize Territories, by instituting temporary 
governments, must be traced directly to some provision of the Constitution 
conferring the authority in express terms, or as a means necessary and prop- 
er to carry into effect some one or more of the powers which are specifically 
delegated. Is not the organization of a Territory eminently necessary and 
proper as a means of enabling the people thereof to form and mould their lo- 
cal and domestic institutions, and establish a state government under the 
authority of the Constitution, preparatory to its admission into the Union ? 
If so, the right of Congress to pass the organic act for the temporary govern- 
ment is clearly included in the provision which authorizes the admission of 
new states. This power, however, being an incident to an express grant, 
and resulting from it by necessary implication, as an appropriate means for 
carrying it into effect, must be exercised in harmony with the nature and 
objects of the grant from which it is deduced. The organic act of the Ter- 
ritory, deriving its validity from the power of Congress to admit new states, 
must contain no provision or restriction which would destroy or impair the 
equality of the proposed state with the original states, or impose any limita- 
tion upon its sovereignty which the Constitution has not placed on all the 
states. So far as the organization of a Territory may be necessary and prop- 
er as a means of carrying into effect the provision of the Constitution for the 
admission of new states, and when exercised with reference only to that end, 
the power of Congress is clear and explicit ; but beyond that point the au- 
thority can not extend, for the reason that all ' ' powers not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are re- 
served to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, the or- 
ganic act of the Territory, conforming to the spirit of the grant from which 
it receives its validity, must leave the people entirely free to form and regu- 
late their domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, sub- 
ject only to the Constitution of the United States, to the end that when they 
attain the requisite population, and establish a state government in conform- 
ity to the federal Constitution, they may be admitted into the Union on an 
equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever. 

[He then traced the history of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society, 
and of the Missouri organizations, and proceeded as follows :] 

If the people of any state should become so much enamored with their 
own peculiar institution as to conceive the philanthropic scheme of forcing so 
great a blessing on their unwilling neighbors, and with that view should cre- 
ate a mammoth moneyed corporation, for the avowed purpose of sending a 
sufficient number of their young men into a neighboring state, to remain long 
enough to acquire the right of voting, with the fixed and paramount object 
of reversing the settled policy and changing the domestic institutions of such 
state, would it not be deemed an act of aggression, as offensive and flagrant 

N 



290 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

as if attempted by direct and open violence ? It is a well-settled principle 
of constitutional law in this country, tha\ while all the states of the Union 
are united in one for certain purposes, yet each state, in respect to every 
thing which affects its domestic policy and internal concerns, stands in the 
relation of a foreign power to every other state. 

Hence no state has a right to pass any law, or do or authorize any act, 
with the view to influence or change the domestic policy of any other state 
or Territory of the Union, more than it would with reference to France or 
England, or any other foreign state with which we are at peace. Indeed, 
every state of this Union is under higher obligations to observe a friendly 
forbearance and generous comity toward each other member of the confeder- 
acy than the laws of nations can impose on foreign states. While foreign 
states are restrained from all acts of aggression and unkindness only by that 
spirit of comity which the laws of nations enjoin upon all friendly powers, 
we have assumed the additional obligation to obey the Constitution, which 
secures to every state the right to control its own internal affairs. If repug- 
nance to domestic slavery can justify Massachusetts in incorporating a mam- 
moth company to influence and control that question in any state or Territo- 
ry of this Union, the same principle of action would authorize France or En- 
gland to use the same means to accomplish the same end in Brazil or Cuba, 
or in fifteen states of this Union ; while it would license the United States to 
interfere with serfdom in Russia, or polygamy in Turkey, or any other ob- 
noxious institution in any part of the world. The same principle of action, 
when sanctioned by our example, would authorize all the kingdoms, and 
empires, and despotisms in the world to engage in a common crusade against 
republicanism in America, as an institution quite as obnoxious to them as 
domestic slavery is to any portion of the people of the United States. 

If our obligations arising under the law of nations are so imperative as to 
make it our duty to enact neutrality laws, and to exert the whole power and 
authority of the executive branch of the government, including the army and 
navy, to enforce them, in restraining our citizens from interfering with the 
internal concerns of foreign states, can the obligations of each state and Ter- 
ritory of this Union be less imperative under the federal Constitution to ob- 
serve entire neutrality in respect to the domestic institutions of the several 
states and Territories ? Non-interference with the internal concerns of other 
states is recognized by all civilized countries as a fundamental principle of 
the laws of nations, for the reason that the peace of the world could not be 
maintained for a single day without it. How, then, can we hope to preserve 
peace and fraternal feelings among the different portions of this republic, un- 
less we yield implicit obedience to a principle which has all the sanction of 
patriotic duty as well as constitutional obligation ? 

When the emigrants sent out by the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Com- 
pany, and their affiliated societies, passed through the state of Missouri in 
large numbers on their way to Kansas, the violence of their language, and 
the unmistakable indications of their determined hostility to the domestic 
institutions of that state created apprehensions that the object of the com- 
pany was to abolitionize Kansas as a means of prosecuting a relentless war- 
fare upon the institutions of slavery within the limits of Missouri. These 
apprehensions increased and spread with the progress of events, until they 
became the settled convictions of the people of that portion of the state most 
exposed to the danger by their proximity to the Kansas border. The nat- 
ural consequence was, that immediate steps were taken by the people of the 
western counties of Missouri to stimulate, organize, and carry into effect a 
system of emigration similar to that of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Com- 
pany, for the avowed purpose of counteracting the effects, and protecting 
themselves and their domestic institutions from the consequences of that 
company's operations. 



KAXSAS AXD HER GOVERNMENTS. 291 

The material difference in the character of the two rival and conflicting 
movements consists in the fact that the one had its origin in an aggressive, 
and the other in a defensive policy; the one was organized in pursuance of 
the provisions and claiming to act under the authority of a legislative enact- 
ment of a distant state, whose internal prosperity and domestic security did 
not depend upon the success of the movement ; while the other was the 
spontaneous action of the people living in the immediate vicinity of the 
theatre of operations, excited, by a sense of common danger, to the necessi- 
ty of protecting their own firesides from the apprehended horrors of servile 
insurrection and intestine war. Both parties, conceiving it to be essential 
to the success of their respective plans that they should be upon the field of 
operations prior to the first election in the Territory, selected principally 
young men, persons unencumbered by families, and Avhose conditions in life 
enabled them to leave at a moment's warning, and move with great celerity, 
to go at once, and select and occupy the most eligible sites and favored lo- 
cations in the Territory, to be held by themselves and their associates who 
should follow them. For the successful prosecution of such a scheme, the 
Missourians who lived in the immediate vicinity possessed peculiar advant- 
ages over their rivals from the more remote portions of the Union. Each 
family could send one of its members across the line to mark out his claim, 
erect a cabin, and put in a small crop, sufficient to give him as valid a right 
to be deemed an actual settler and qualified voter as those who were being 
imported by the Emigrant Aid Societies. In an unoccupied Territory, where 
the lands have not been surveyed, and where there were no marks or lines to 
indicate the boundaries of sections and quarter sections, and where no legal 
title could be had until after the surveys should be made, disputes, quarrels, 
violence, and bloodshed might have been expected as the natural and inev- 
itable consequences of such extraordinary systems of emigration, which di- 
vided and arrayed the settlers into two great hostile parties, each having an 
inducement to claim more than was his right, in order to hold it for some 
new-comer of his own party, and at the same time prevent persons belonging 
to the opposite party from settling in the neighborhood. As a result of this 
state of things, the great mass of emigrants from the Northwest and from 
other states, who went there on their own account, with no other object, and 
influence by no other motives than to improve their condition and secure 
good homes for their families, were compelled to array themselves under the 
banner of one of these hostile parties, in order to insure protection to them- 
selves and their claims against the aggressions and violence of the other. 

[He then traced minutely the history of all the elections held in Kansas, 
the charges of fraud, etc., and the legality of the existing Territorial Legis- 
lature, and proceeded :] 

Your committee have not considered it any part of their duty to examine 
and review each enactment and provision of the large volume of laws adopt- 
ed by the Legislature of Kansas upon almost every rightful subject of legis- 
lation, and affecting nearly every relation and interest in life, with a view 
either to their approval or their disapproval by Congress, for the reason that 
local laws, confined in their operation to the internal concerns of the Terri- 
tory, the control and management of which, by the principles of the federal 
Constitution, as well as by the very terms of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, are 
confided to the people of the Territory, to be determined by themselves 
through their representatives in their local Legislature, and not by the Con- 
gress, in which they have no representatives, to give or withhold their assent 
to the laws upon which their rights and liberties may all depend. Under 
these laws marriages have taken place, children have been born, deaths have 
occurred, estates have been distributed, contracts have been made, and rights 
have accrued which it is not competent for Congress to divest. If there can 



292 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

be a doubt in respect to the validity of these laws, growing out of the alleged 
irregularity of the election of the members of the Legislature, or the lawful- 
ness of the place where its sessions were held, which it is competent for any 
tribunal to inquire into, with a view to its decision at this day, and after the 
series of events which have ensued, it must be a judicial question, over which 
Congress can have no control, and which can be determined only by the 
courts of justice, under the protection and sanction of the Constitution. 

When it was proposed in the last Congress to annul the acts of the legis- 
lative assembly of Minnesota incorporating certain railroad companies, this 
committee reported against the proposition, and, instead of annulling the 
local legislation of the Territory, recommended the repeal of that clause of 
the organic act of Minnesota which reserves to Congress the right to disap- 
prove its laws. That recommendation was based on the theory that the 
people of the Territory, being citizens of the United States, were entitled to 
the privilege of self-government in obedience to the Constitution ; and if, in 
the exercise of this right, they had made wise and just laws, they ought to 
be permitted to enjoy all the advantages resulting from them ; while, on the 
contrary, if they had made unwise and unjust laws, they should abide the 
consequences of their own acts until they discovered, acknowledged, and 
corrected their errors. 

[The report then reviewed the history and origin of the Topeka revolution, 
the organization, objects, and purposes of the "Kansas Legion," quoting 
from the history of all the new states that all movements to establish new 
states must be in subordination to local law, and having no validity until ap- 
proved by the action of Congress. Having elaborately discussed these ques- 
tions, the report concluded as follows :] 

These facts and official papers prove conclusively that the proposition to 
the people of California to hold a convention and organize a state govern- 
ment originated with, and that all the proceedings were had in subordination 
to, the authority and supremacy of the existing local government of the Ter- 
ritory, under the advice and with the approval of the executive government 
of the United States. Hence the action of the people of California in form- 
ing their Constitution and state government, and of Congress in admitting 
the state into the Union, can not be cited, with the least show of justice or 
fairness, in justification or palliation of the revolutionary movements to sub- 
vert the government which Congress has established in Kansas. 

Nor can the insurgents derive aid or comfort from the position assumed by 
either party to the unfortunate controversy which arose in the State of Rhode 
Island a few years ago, when an effort was made to change the organic law, 
and set up a state government in opposition to the one then in existence 
under the charter granted by Charles the Second of England. Those who 
were engaged in that unsuccessful struggle assumed, as fundamental truths 
in our system of government, that Rhode Island was a sovereign state in all 
that pertained to her internal affairs ; that the right to change her organic 
law was an essential attribute of sovereignty ; that, inasmuch as the charter 
under which the existing government was organized contained no provision 
for changing or amending the same, and the people had not delegated that 
right to the Legislature or any other tribunal, it followed, as a matter of 
course, that they had retained it, and were at liberty to exercise it in such 
manner as to them should seem wise, just, and proper. 

Without deeming it necessary to express any opinion on this occasion in 
reference to the merits of that controversy, it is evident that the principles 
upon which it was conducted are not involved in the revolutionary straggle 
now going on in Kansas ; for the reason, that the sovereignty of a Territory 
remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people, 
until they shall be admitted into the Union as a state. In the mean time 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 293 

they are entitled to enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights of self- 
government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in 
obedience to their organic law passed by Congress in pursuance of that in- 
strument. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution 
through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection 
to all the limitations and restrictions which that Constitution imposes. 
Hence it is clear that the people of the Territory have no inherent sovereign 
right under the Constitution of the United States to annul the laws and re- 
sist the authority of the Territorial government which Congress has establish- 
ed in obedience to the Constitution. 

In tracing, step by step, the origin and history of these Kansas difficulties, 
your committee have been profoundly impressed with the significant fact that 
each one has resulted from an attempt to violate or circumvent the principles 
and provisions of the act of Congress for the organization of Kansas and Ne- 
braska. The leading idea and fundamental principle of the Kansas-Nebras- 
ka Act, as expressed in the law itself, was to leave the actual settlers and bona 
Jide inhabitants of each Territory " perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States." While this is declared to be "the true intent and meaning 
of the act," those who were opposed to allowing the people of the Territory, 
preparatory to their admission into the Union as a state, to decide the Slav- 
ery question for themselves, failing to accomplish their purpose in the halls 
of Congress, and under the authority of the Constitution, immediately resort- 
ed in their respective states to unusual and extraordinary means to control 
the political destinies and shape the domestic institutions of Kansas, in defi- 
ance of the wishes and regardless of the rights of the people of that Territory 
as guaranteed by their organic law. Combinations in one section of the 
Union to stimulate an unnatural and false system of emigration, with the 
view of controlling the elections, and forcing the domestic institutions of the 
Territory to assimilate to those of the non-slaveholding states, were followed, 
as might have been foreseen, by the use of similar means in the slaveholding 
states to produce directly the opposite result. To these causes, and to these 
alone, in the opinion of your committee, may be traced the origin and prog- 
ress of all the controversies and disturbances with which Kansas is now con- 
vulsed. 

If these unfortunate troubles have resulted as natural consequences from 
unauthorized and improper schemes of foreign interference with the internal 
affairs and domestic concerns of the Territory, it is apparent that the remedy 
must be sought in a strict adherence to the principles, and rigid enforcement 
of the provisions of the organic law. In this connection your committee feel 
sincere satisfaction in commending the messages aud proclamation of the 
President of the United States, in which we have the gratifying assurance 
that the supi'emacy of the laws will be maintained; that rebellion will be 
crushed ; that insurrection will be suppressed ; that aggressive intrusion for 
the purpose of deciding elections, or any other purpose, will be repelled ; that 
unauthorized iutermeddling in the local concerns of the Territory, both from 
adjoining and distant states, will be prevented ; that the federal and local 
laws will be vindicated against all attempts of organized resistance ; and that 
the people of the Territory will be protected in the establishment of their own 
institutions, undisturbed by encroachments from without, and in the full en- 
joyment of the rights of self-government assured to them by the Constitution 
and the organic law. 

In view of these assurances, given under the conviction that the existing 
laws confer all the authority necessary to the performance of these important 
duties, and that the whole available force of the United States will be exerted 
to the extent required for their performance, your committee repose in entire 



294 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

confidence that peace, and security, and law will prevail in Kansas. If any 
further evidence were necessary to prove that all the collisions and difficulties 
in Kansas have been produced by the schemes of foreign interference which 
have been developed in this report, in violation of the principles and in eva- 
sion of the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, it may be found in the 
fact that in Nebraska, to which the Emigrant Aid Societies did not extend 
their operations, and into which the stream of emigration was permitted to 
flow in its usual and natural channels, nothing has occurred to disturb the 
peace and harmony of the Territory, while the principle of self-government, 
in obedience to the Constitution, has had fair play, and is quietly working 
out its legitimate results. 

It now only remains for your committee to respond to the two specific 
recommendations of the President in his special message. They are as fol- 
lows : 

"This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by providing that, when 
the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of sufficient numbers to 
constitute a state, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualified 
voters, shall assemble to frame a Constitution, and thus prepare, through 
regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a state. I re- 
spectfully recommend the enactment of a law to that effect. 

"I recommend, also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any 
expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws or the 
maintenance of public order in the Territory of Kansas." 

In compliance with the first recommendation, your committee ask leave to 
report a bill authorizing the Legislature of the Territory to provide by law 
for the election of delegates by the people, and the assembling of a conven- 
tion to form a Constitution and state government preparatory to their ad- 
mission into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, as soon 
as it shall appear, by a census to be taken under the direction of the governor, 
by the authority of the Legislature, that the Territory contains ninety-three 
thousand four hundred and twenty inhabitants, that being the number re- 
quired by the present ratio of representation for a member of Congress. 

In compliance with the other recommendation, your committee propose to 
offer to the Appropriation Bill an amendment appropriating such sum as 
shall be found necessary, by the estimates to be obtained, for the pm-pose in- 
dicated in the recommendation of the President. 

All of which is respectfully submitted to the Senate by your committee. 

On the 20th of March Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate, in 
a speech of three hours, in vindication of the principles enun- 
ciated in the report of the majority of the committee. In that 
S])eech he reviewed the entire troubles of Kansas, and traced 
them, step by step, to the attempts made to violate the Kan- 
sas-Xebraska Act. All the violence, and all the confusion, ex- 
citement, and distress, were the natural consequences of efforts 
made by persons and organizations outside of Kansas to wrest 
from the people of that Territory the privilege of governing 
themselves. On the 4th of April — the debate having been 
continued from time to time — Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, a 
member of the Committee on Territories, having concluded his 
speech in opposition to the reasoning and conclusions of the 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 295 

majority report made by Mr. Douglas, the latter gentleman re- 
plied to him with great animation. The following was the 
closing part of his speech : 

Mr. President, I have said enough to bring back the points to the position in 
which I left them in my former speech. I am not going to follow the sen- 
ator from Vermont through all his criticisms on the majority report. They 
arc not of a character which call for a reply at this time, nor would it be fair 
to detain the Senate for that purpose at this late hour. 

The senator from Vermont has explained what he meant by the word 
"experiment" in his minority report, the natural, and perhaps unavoidable 
consequence of which would be violence and bloodshed. He says he alluded 
to the experiment of the Nebraska Bill, by which the question of Slavery was, 
for the first time in our history, left to the decision of the people. What is 
the objection to leaving the decision of that, as well as all other local and 
domestic questions, to the people who are immediately interested in it? 

His objection is that it has a tendency to bring opposing elements and in- 
flammable materials into collision from which violence may be apprehended. 
Does not the same objection apply to all other questions which involve the 
interests and excite the passions of men as well as the question of Slavery ? 
Does it not apply to the Maine Liquor Law, to railroad controversies, to tax- 
ation, to schools, to the location of county seats, to the division of counties — 
in short, does it not apply to all questions of legislation which affect the prop- 
erty and enlist the feelings and passions of the community ? If the objection 
be a valid one against the Nebraska Bill in respect to the Slavery question, 
it applies in a greater or less degree to every other subject of legislation in 
proportion as it affects the interests and feelings of the people. It is an ob- 
jection to the fundamental principles upon which all free governments rest, 
and which, when admitted to be valid, drives us irresistibly to despotism. 
The argument is that the people should not be permitted to vote upon a ques- 
tion involving their social and domestic systems, lest there might arise a di- 
versity of opinion which might possibly degenerate into quarrels and contro- 
versies, and terminate in violence ! Hence it would seem to follow that if 
the people were allowed any voice in making their own laws, it should be 
confined to those insignificant questions in which they feel no interest, and 
in regard to which there could be no probability of a diversity of opinion ! 
Precious boon — to allow the people to vote when they feel no interest in the 
question, and deny them the privilege when they do, for fear they will differ 
in opinion and become excited about it! This is "the experiment" — "the 
vice of a mistaken law" — to which the senator from Vermont traces all the 
difficulties in Kansas ! He seems to be under the impression that this " ex- 
periment" is now introduced into our legislation for the first time in respect 
to the Slavery question by the Nebraska Bill ! He makes the Nebraska Act 
a far more important measure — one reflecting infinitely more credit upon its 
author than I ever claimed for it ! I was under the impression that the same 
principle, or experiment, as he prefers to call it, was involved and affirmed 
in the compromise measures of 1850, and incorporated into the platforms of 
the Whig party and of the Democratic party in 1852, as a rule of action by 
which each party pledged itself to be governed in all future controversies upon 
the Slavery question. Did not the acts for the organization of the Territories 
of Utah and New Mexico try the same "experiment?" Were not those acts 
based on the same principle ? Did not those acts ' ' leave the people perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States," with the guarantee that, when 
admitted into the Union, they should be received "with or without slavery," 



296 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

as their Constitution should provide at the time of admission ? Did violence 
and bloodshed result as the natural, and perhaps unavoidable consequences 
of this experiment in 1850? Have any such consequences resulted from the 
same experiment in Nebraska in 1854:? If violence and bloodshed are the 
natural consequences of such an experiment, why have not the same causes 
produced like effects elsewhere as well as in^ansas ? I would like to have 
this inquiry answered by the senator from Vwnont, or by the senator from 
New York [Mr. Seward], who has endorsed his report and pledged himself 
to make good its positions. I will give them the benefit of my answer now. 
There were no Emigrant Aid Societies in 1850. There were no organized 
systems of foreign interference in either of those Territories. The Emigrant 
Aid Societies have not extended their operations to Nebraska. The "ex- 
periment" of self-government — that "vice of a mistaken law" — has had fair 
play in Nebraska ; hence nothing has occurred in that Territory to disturb 
the peace and quiet of the inhabitants. On the contrary, in Kansas, where 
there has been organized foreign interference — where the Emigrant Aid So- 
cieties concentrated all their efforts to control the domestic institutions and 
local legislation of the Territory — violence and bloodshed have resulted as 
the natural consequences, not of the "vice of a mistaken law," but of their 
experiment of foreign interference with the domestic concerns of a distant 
Territory ! 

But the senator from Vermont has made one concession for which I re- 
turn him my acknowledgments. He admits that, by the Constitution of the 
United States, each state has a right to decide the Slavery question for it- 
self, and that this right could have been exercised by the people of Kansas 
when they should form a Constitution, preparatory to their admission into 
the Union, even if the Nebraska Bill had not repealed the Missouri Com- 
promise. I thank him for this admission. I hope those with whom he acts 
will endorse the proposition. Then I would like to have him and them ex- 
plain what harm the repeal has done, and why they desire to have it re- 
stored ? If Kansas could have become a slave state before as well as now, 
what is the use of restoring the Missouri Compromise ? 

Mr. Seward. The honorable senator will excuse me for calling his atten- 
tion to a misapprehension under which he labors with regard to the remark 
of the senator from Vermont, who is now absent, which is the only reason 
why I interpose. 

Mr. Douglas. I yield the floor with pleasure. 

Mr. Seward. I heard a large portion of the senator's speech, and I did not 
understand him to say that a state would have the right to come into the 
Union with or without slavery, as her people pleased, if the Compromise Act 
had not been repealed. I understood him to say that, after coming in, it 
would have the right to establish or prohibit slavery. 

Mr. Toombs and several other senators. No, no. 

Mr. Douglas. On the contrary, he took the distinct ground that a state, 
when its people assembled to form a Constitution, preparatory to admission, 
had the right to come in with or without slavery, even under the Missouri 
Compromise. 

Mr. Seward. I did not hear that. 

Mr. Douglas. My colleague came to the same conclusion the other day in 
his speech. We seem to be making converts to the true doctrine. It is a 
sound constitutional principle. If we get men to admit that a state has the 
right, when she forms her Constitution, either to have slavery or not, to adopt 
or reject it as she pleases, it is a pretty good step toward the doctrine of the 
Nebraska Bill. When that admission is made, I want to know what you all 
mean when you talk about a breach of faith in the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise ? You have all been in the habit of saying on the stump, and 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 297 

wherever else you had the opportunity, that by the Nebraska Bill we have 
broken a covenant which dedicated Kansas and Nebraska to freedom "for- 
ever." We are now told that "forever" means " hereafter," and lasts only 
until there are people enough to form a state, and that no particular num- 
ber is required for that purpose. 

The senator from Vermont attempts to ridicule the Nebraska Bill because 
it contains a provision declaring the Constitution of the United States to be 
in force in the Territory. He desires to know who ever doubted that such 
would be the case without that provision ? Who was ever silly enough to 
suppose that the Constitution could be extended by law over a Territory 
which it did not reach without such law ? I will answer his question. I 
will tell him the man. It was no less a person than Daniel Webster — New 
England's great statesman, whom she delighted to call the great expounder 
of the Constitution. Senators who were then members of this body have not 
forgotten, and will not soon forget, the debate between Mr. Webster and Mr. 
Calhoun upon this very point, in which the former contended that the Con- 
stitution of the United States did not extend over the Territories without an 
Act of Congress to that effect ; while, on the other hand, the great Carolin- 
ian insisted that the Constitution was coextensive with the limits, and cov- 
ered all the territories pertaining to the republic. Without endorsing the 
peculiar opinions of Mr. Webster on this point, Mr. Clay did not hesitate, in 
deference to them, to adopt, in the Compromises of 1850, the identical pro- 
vision which the senator from Vermont now attempts to ridicule, under the 
supposition that I introduced it into the Nebraska Act for the first time in 
our legislation. I copied the provision from the compromise measures of 
1850 for the same reasons which induced Mr. Clay to adopt it, although it is 
but fair to say that I never did concur in the opinion of Mr. Webster that the 
Constitution did not apply to the Territories without an act of Congress car- 
rying it there. 

Mr. President, I have a few words to say to the senator from New York 
[Mr. Seward] before I close my remarks. On the day I presented to the 
Senate the report of the Committee on Territories, and immediately after the 
minority report was read at the secretary's desk, he rose and volunteered the 
pledge that he would make good every position affirmed by it. As he has 
the floor for the next speech upon this question, he will be expected to re- 
deem this pledge, or acknowledge his inability to do so. One of these posi- 
tions is, that the "experiment" of allowing the people to settle the Slavery 
question for themselves in Territories preparatory to their admission into the 
Union was introduced into our legislation for the first time in the history of 
this republic in the Kansas-Nebraska Act ; and that, if violence resulted 
from this experiment as a natural, and perhaps unavoidable consequence, it 
was the " vice of a mistaken law." I call on the senator from New York to 
sustain the truth of this allegation. I desire him to answer specifically 
whether the compromise measures of 1850 did not leave the people of New 
Mexico and Utah perfectly free to decide the Slavery question for themselves, 
and guarantee their admission into the Union with or without slavery, as their 
Constitution should provide at the time of admission? I ask him if he did 
not oppose the bills for the organization of those Territories at that time 
for the reason that they did not contain the Wilmot Proviso prohibiting 
slavery, and for the reason that they did contain the guarantee that they 
should be admitted with or without slavery, as they should decide for them- 
selves ? When he answers this question, I would like to have him explain 
at the same time whether he did not stand pledged in 1852 to sustain the 
Whig Baltimore platform, and to support General Scott, standing on that 
platform, "with the resolutions annexed," to use his emphatic language; 
and whether those resolutions did not bind General Scott, and the party sup- 

N2 



298 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

porting him, to carry out in good faith the compromise measures of 1850 " in 
substance and in principle ?" I desire a cfirect answer on these points, in 
order that the Senate may judge how far he redeems his pledge to make good 
the positions of the minority report. I would like to have him explain the 
difference between the "experiment" of the compromise measures of 1850 
and of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, in allowing the people to decide 
the Slavery question for themselves, and whether that principle in each case 
was equally the "vice of a mistaken law?" If he shall answer that he did 
regard both measures in the same light, I should be gratified if he will ex- 
plain how it was that he united with the Whig party in 1852 to sustain the 
"vice of that mistaken law," and now calls upon all the odds and ends, 
fragments and portions of parties and isms, to merge all differences on other 
points, and form a. fusion with him on the isolated point of eradicating this 
"vice of a mistaken law" in the name of freedom and humanity? While 
he is portraying the beauties of negro freedom and equality, and demonstra- 
ting the propriety of sacrificing the political and constitutional rights of 
20,000,000 of white people for the benefit of 3,000,000 of negroes, I would 
be glad if he would point out the advantages which the negro will derive 
from the admission of Kansas with the Topeka Constitution. That Consti- 
tution provides that as long as Kansas shall be a state, as long as water runs 
and grass grows, no negro, fkee or slave, shall ever live or breathe under 
that Constitution. 

Mr. Seward. Does the senator wish me to answer now ? 

Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir. * 

Mr. Seward. Then my answer is that, such being the Constitution, he is 
wrong in the premises that I am desirous to admit the State of Kansas for 
the benefit of the negro. It must be for the benefit of the white man. 

Mr. Douglas. Am I to understand the senator that he has abandoned the 
cause of the negro upon the ground that his freedom and equality are incon- 
sistent with the rights of the white man ? What has become of his profes- 
sions of sympathy for the poor negro ? What are we to think of the sincer- 
ity of his professions upon this subject? 

Mr. Seward. That is another thing. 

Mr. Douglas. That is the very thing. If all other considerations are to be 
made to yield to the paramount object of prohibiting slavery in Kansas upon 
the ground that the inequality which it imposes is unjust to the negro, will 
that injustice be removed by adopting a Constitution which in effect declares 
that the negro, whether free or slave, shall never tread the soil, nor drink 
the water, nor breathe the air of Kansas ? The senator from New York ad- 
mits that the Constitution with which he proposes by his bill to admit Kan- 
sas contains such a provision. Under the code of laws enacted by the Terri- 
torial Legislature of Kansas, which the senator, in common with his party, 
professes to consider monstrous and barbarous, a negro may go to Kansas 
and be protected in all his rights, so long as he obeys the laws of the land. 
In order to get rid of those laws, the senator from New York proposes to give 
effect to a constitutional provision which is designed to prevent the negro 
forever from entering the state. 

I should like to hear from the senator from Massachusetts on this point. 
I believe he took particular pains a few years ago to arraign the State of Illi- 
nois for inserting a similar clause in her Constitution. 

Mr. Sumner. Never. 

Mr. Douglas. Well, perhaps it was his predecessor, Mr. Winthrop. Upon 
reflection, I think it was. I think it once became my duty to vindicate the 
right of my own state to insert such a clause in her Constitution against the 
assaults of a Massachusetts senator. Had the present senator been here at 
that time, and found it necessary to have spoken on the subject, is it as- 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 299 

suming too much to venture the opinion that he would have joined in that 
condemnation? 

Mr. Sumner. I should condemn it, certainly. 

Mr, Douglas. Then, will the senator approve in the Constitution of Kansas 
what he condemns in the Constitution of Illinois ? I would like to hear the 
senator's response to this inquiry. If such a provision was wrong in Illinois, 
is it right in Kansas? Had not the Democratic State of Illinois as good a 
right to adopt such a provision as the Free-soil party of Kansas ? Will the 
senator from Massachusetts "vote for the bill introduced by the senator from 
New York to admit Kansas, at a time when she has not one third of the req- 
uisite population, with such a Constitution ? 

I do not wish to be misunderstood on this point. I object to the admission 
of Kansas at tins time, and under existing circumstances, on entirely different 
grounds. I affirm the right of Illinois to put such a clause in her Constitu- 
tion. The people of Illinois had a right to do as they pleased on that sub- 
ject. We tried slavery while a Territory, notwithstanding the ordinance of 
1787, until we found that in our climate and with our productions it was not 
good for us to retain it, and for that reason we abolished and prohibited it. 
When Ave decided that Illinois should be a free state we also determined that 
it should be a white state. We did not believe in the equality of the negro 
with the white man, and hence were opposed to a mixture of the races. The 
Constitution of Illinois was made by white men for the benefit of white men. 
The same principle of state rights and state equality which authorized Illinois 
to abolish slavery secured to each other state the privilege of retaining it if it 
chose. The same principle which authorized Illinois to exclude the free 
negro allows each other state to receive him if agreeable to her tastes and 
consistent with her interests. We are perfectly content with the practical 
operation of this great principle, which teaches the people of each separate 
community to mind their own business, and accord the same right to their 
neighbors. Hence I should have no controversy with the senator from New 
York, or his political associates, in regard to this particular clause in the Kan- 
sas Constitution, did they not claim the right, and insist that it is their duty, 
to examine the provisions of the Constitution of each state applying for ad- 
mission, and then either to admit or reject the application, according as they 
may approve or disapprove the Constitution. It is on this ground that they 
claim the right to inquire whether the Constitution prohibits or protects 
slavery, and to vote for a free state and against a slave state. It was on this 
ground that the Northern States voted against the admission of Missouri in 
1821 — one year after the adoption of the Missouri Compromise — because the 
Constitution had a similar provision against free negroes to the one in the 
Kansas Constitution. Hence I desire to learn from the senator from New 
York whether he and his sympathizing associates do really approve of a con- 
stitutional provision which shall deny to the negro forever not merely the 
right to enjoy the same liberty accorded to the white man, but also the right 
to live and breathe within the limits of the proposed State of Kansas. 

Mr. Seward. Will the honorable senator allow me to answer now ? 

Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Seivard. I need scarcely inform the honorable senator that I do not 
approve of any such provision in any Constitution in the world. I never did, 
and I never shall, vote to approve or sanction, in any Constitution or in any 
law, a provision which tends to keep any human being — any member of the 
human family to which I belong, in a condition of degradation below the 
position which I occupy myself except for his own fault or crime. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator does not approve of this position, and never can, 
for the reason that it does not put the negro on an equality with himself! 
Then, will he vote for admitting Kansas in this irregular manner, and with- 



300 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

out the requisite population, merely because her Constitution has a provision 
which keeps slaves from going into the* Territory, together with another 
clause " which tends to keep a man — being a member of the human family to 
which he belongs — in a condition of degradation below the position which he 
occupies himself?" Yet, if he votes for his own bill to admit Kansas with 
the Topeka Constitution, according to his own doctrine he does vote to sanc- 
tion a provision to keep the negro out altogether ; he will not allow a negro 
to come in a condition either below him or above him. 

Mr. Seward. You can take it either way — above or below. 

Mr. Douglas. Yes ; he will exclude the negro absolutely if he is below or 
above him. He will insist upon having the negro upon a footing of entire 
and perfect equality with himself. Yet, if his bill passes, and Kansas is ad- 
mitted with the Constitution which has been formed and presented here, all 
negroes, both free and slave, are forever prohibited from entering the State 
of Kansas by the terms of the instrument. He can not escape the responsi- 
bility of this result on the plea that he does not vote directly to endorse and 
sanction the Constitution in all its parts ; for his doctrine, and the doctrine 
of his party, is that they not only have the right, but that it is their duty to 
examine the Constitution in all its parts, and vote for it or against it, accord- 
ing as they approve or disapprove of its provisions, and especially those pro- 
visions which degrade the negro below the level of the white man. He must 
abandon all the principles to which his life has been devoted ; he must aban- 
don the creed of the party of which he is the acknowledged leader before he 
can vote for his own bill. The Black Republican party was organized and 
founded on the fundamental principle of perfect and entire equality of rights 
and privileges between the negro and the white man — an equality secured 
and guaranteed by a law higher than the Constitution of the United States. 
In your creed, as proclaimed to the world, you stand pledged against "the 
admission of any more slave states ;" 

To repeal the Fugitive Slave Law ; 

To abolish the slave-trade between the states ; 

To prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia ; 

To restore the prohibition on Kansas and Nebraska; and 

To acquire no more territory unless slavery shall be first prohibited. 

That is your creed, authoritatively proclaimed. I trust there is to be no 
evading or dodging the issue — no lowering of the flag. Let each party 
stand by its principles and the issues as you have presented them and we 
have accepted them. Let us have a fair, bold fight before the people, and 
then let the verdict be pronounced. 

Mr. Seward. You will have it. 

Mr. Douglas. I rejoice in this assurance. I trust the senator will be able 
to bring his troops up to the line, and to hold them there. I trust there is 
to be no lowering of the flag — no abandonment or change of the issues. 
There are rumors afloat that you are about to strike your colors ; that you 
propose to surrender each one of these issues, not because you do not profess 
to be right, but because you can not succeed in the right ; that you propose 
to throw overboard all the bold men who distinguished themselves in your 
service in fighting the anti-Nebraska fight, and to take a new man, who, in 
consequence of not being committed to either side, will be enabled to cheat 
somebody by getting votes from both sides ! Rumor says that all your vet- 
eran generals who have received scars and wounds in the anti-Nebraska 
campaign are now considered unfit to command, and are to be laid aside in 
order to take up some new man who has not antagonized with the great 
principles of self-government and state equality. Rumor says that, in pur- 
suance of this line of policy, you dare not allow your committees in the 
House of Representatives to bring in bills to redeem your pledges and carry 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 301 

out your principles ; that there is to he no bill passed in your Fusion House 
to repeal the Kansas-Nebraska Act — none to repeal the Fugitive Slave Law 
— none to abolish the slave-trade between the states — none to abolish slavery 
in the District of Columbia — none to redeem any one of your pledges, or 
carry out any one of your principles, upon which you secured a majority in 
the House by a fusion with Northern Know-nothingism. Rumor says that 
your committees were arranged with the view of keeping all these questions 
in the background until after the presidential election, in order that the agi- 
tation may be reopened with better prospects of success when power shall 
have been obtained under the auspices of a new man, who has not been crip- 
pled in the great battle. Would it not be a curious spectacle to see this 
great Anti-Nebraska or Black Republican party — which, less than eighteen 
months ago, proclaimed a war of extermination, in which no quarter was to 
granted or received, and no prisoners to be taken — skirmishing to avoid a 
pitched battle, and get an opportunity to retreat from the face of those whom 
they determined to hang, and burn, and torture with all the refinements of 
cruelty which their vengeance could devise ? Are the offices and patronage 
of government so much more important to you than your principles that you 
feel it your duty to sacrifice your creed, and the men identified with it, in 
order to get power ? Are you prepared to ignore the material points in issue 
for fear that they will compromit you in the presidential election ? 

Mr. Wade. We will whip you then. 

Mr. Douglas. That remains to be seen. We are prepared to give you a 
fair fight on the issues you have tendered and we accepted. Let the presi- 
dential contest be one of principle alone ; let the principles involved be dis- 
tinctly stated and boldly met, without any attempts at concealment or equiv- 
ocation ; let the result be a verdict of approval or disapproval so emphatic 
that it can not be misunderstood. One year ago you promised us a fair 
fight in the open field upon the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska Act! 
You then unfurled your banner, and bore it aloft in the hands of your own 
favorite and tried leaders, with your principles emblazoned upon it. Are 
you now preparing to lower your flag — to throw overboard all your tried 
men who have rendered service in your cause — and issue a search-warrant in 
hopes of finding a new man, who has not antagonized with any body, and 
whose principles are unknown, for the purpose of cheating somebody by get- 
ting votes from all sorts of men ? Let us have an open and a fair fight. 
[Applause in the galleries.] 

The Chair. The galleries will be cleared if these demonstrations are re- 
newed. 

Mr. Douglas. I will not pursue the subject further. 

The debate on the bill proceeded from day to day without 
any action by the Senate until the 25th of June. In the mean 
time, Mr. Seward had introduced a bill in the nature of a sub- 
stitute, proposing to admit Kansas as a state under the Topeka 
Constitution ; and Mr. Trumbull had prepared a bill annexing 
Kansas to Nebraska, and making it subject to the laws and 
government in force in that Territory, and abolishing the ex- 
isting government in Kansas. Other bills had been proposed 
by Messrs. Clayton, Geyer, and others. On the 25th of June, 
Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, introduced an amendment in the na- 
ture of a substitute for the whole bill, and on that day the 
pending bill, as well as all the proposed amendments and ^ub- 



302 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

stitutes, were recommitted to the. Committee on Territories. 
On the 30th of June, Mr. Douglas, from the committee, re- 
ported a bill (the Toombs Bill, of which so much was said in 
Illinois during the election of 1858) in lieu of all the proposi- 
tions referred to the committee. 

In the report accompanying this bill, Mr. Douglas referred to 
and described the injustice of the several propositions referred 
to the committee, and closed a comment on the bill to admit 
Kansas under the Topeka Constitution in the following words 
— words which he faithfully adhered to subsequently in the 
Lecompton controversy : 

" The question now arises whether a Constitution, made by a political 
party without the authority of law, and under circumstances which afford no 
safeguards against fraud, and no guarantee of fairness, and raises no pre- 
sumptions that it embodies the wishes and sentiments of a majority of the 
inhabitants, shall be forced, by an act of Congress, upon a whole people as 
their fundamental law, unalterable for nine years. 

"In the opinion of your committee, whenever a Constitution shall be 
formed in any Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a 
state, justice, the genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our republi- 
can system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall be fairly 
expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, 
or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful influence, 
and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution 
of the United States." 

The debate was renewed on the new bill, and at eight 

o'clock on the morning of the 3d of July, after a continuous 

session of twenty hours, the bill was passed — yeas 33, nays 12, 

as follows : 

Yeas — Allen of Rhode Island, Bayard of Delaware, Bell of Tennessee, Ben- 
jamin of Louisiana, Biggs of North Carolina, Bigler of Pennsylvania, Bright 
of Indiana, Brodhead of Pennsylvania, Brown of Mississippi, Cass of Michi- 
gan, Clay of Alabama, Crittenden of Kentucky, Douglas of Illinois, Evans 
of South Carolina, Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Geyer of Missouri, Hunter of 
Virginia, Iverson of Georgia, Johnson of Arkansas, Jones of Iowa, Mallory 
of Florida, Pratt of Maryland, Pugh of Ohio, Reid of North Carolina, Sebas- 
tian of Arkansas, Slidell of Louisiana, Stuart of Michigan, Thompson of 
Kentucky, Toombs of Georgia, Toucey of Connecticut, Weller of California, 
Wright of New Jersey, Yulee of Florida. 

Nays — Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer of Vermont, Dodge of Wiscon- 
sin, Durkee of Wisconsin, Fessenden of Maine, Foot of Vermont, Foster of 
Connecticut, Hale of New Hampshire, Seward of New York, Trumbull of 
Illinois, Wade of Ohio, Wilson of Massachusetts. 

Pending this bill, Mr. Seward moved as a substitute for it a 
proposition to admit Kansas as a state under the Topeka Con- 
stitution, and the amendment received 11 votes. 

Happy for the peace and tranquillity of Kansas, and of the 
country, would it have been had this bill passed Congress. 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 303 

But the fell spirit of fanaticism would not permit a settlement 
of the question, particularly on the eve of a presidential elec- 
tion, when agitation and excitement was the sole available 
capital and stock in trade of the party having a majority in 
the House of Representatives. 

While the bill was pending in the Senate, a bill for the ad- 
mission of Kansas was before the House of Representatives. 
On the 1st of July the House was brought to a direct vote 
upon it, and it was rejected — yeas 106, nays 107. A motion 
to reconsider this vote was made by Mr. Barclay, of Pennsyl- 
vania, and on the 3d the motion to reconsider prevailed — yeas 
101, nays 93 ; and on the same day, Thursday, July 3d, the 
bill passed the House — yeas 99, nays 97. 

Both houses adjourned until Monday, the 7th. In the Sen- 
ate the House bill was referred to the Committee on Terri- 
tories ; in the House the Senate bill was suffered to lie on the 
speaker's table. On the 8th of July Mr. Douglas reported 
back the House bill for the admission of Kansas as a state 
with an amendment — that is, striking out all after the enacting 
clause, and inserting in lieu of it the provisions of the bill pass- 
ed by the Senate on the 3d instant. After some debate the 
amendment was agreed to, and the bill, as amended, passed — 
yeas 30, nays 13. The Senate bill was therefore before the 
House in two forms, first as a Senate bill, and, secondly, as an 
amendment to a House bill. 

No action was had in the House on these bills until the 29th 
of July, when Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, called up a motion he had 
made in February to reconsider a vote committing a bill to 
annul certain acts of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas. The 
House having reconsidered the motion to commit, the bill was 
before it for action, thereupon Mr. Dunn moved to strike out 
all after the enacting clause, and insert what is known in legis- 
lative history as the "Dunn Bill." He moved the previous 
question, and under its operation his amendment was agreed 
to, and the bill, as amended, passed — yeas 88, nays 74. The 
title was then changed to read, " An Act to reorganize the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas, and for other purposes." The bill, when re- 
ceived in the Senate, was referred to the Committee on Terri- 
tories. 

This last bill received the almost unanimous vote of the Re- 
publicans in the House. It was an extraordinary effort at 



304 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

legislation. It abolished treaties, ; invaded New Mexico ; re- 
enacted the Missouri restriction against slavery ; re-enacted the 
Fugitive Slave Law ; legalized slavery in Kansas, New Mexico, 
and Nebraska ; and declared that any slave who might have 
become entitled to freedom by reason of having been carried 
into the Territories, should be remanded to slavery if removed 
from the Territory within a given period ; and ratified and ap- 
proved all the laws of the " Border Ruffian" Legislature of 
Kansas upon the subject of slavery. Such an extraordinary 
act never before received the approval of either house of Con- 
gress, and in voting for it the Republicans voted in direct op- 
position to their entire code of political professions. Mr. 
Douglas, on the 11th of August, reported this bill back, with a 
recommendation that it be laid on the table. Mr. Douglas 
made a written report, in which he dissects the bill, and exposes 
with master-hand the absurdities, and, it might almost be said, 
the stultifications of those Republicans who had voted for it. 
The report says : 

The first section of the bill provides, "That all that part of the territory 
of the United States which lies between the parallels of thirty-six degrees and 
thirty minutes and forty degrees of north latitude, and which is east of the 
eastern boundary of the Territory of Utah to the southeast corner thereof, 
and east of a line thence due south to the said parallel of thirty-six degrees 
thirty minutes north latitude, and is bounded on the east by the western 
boundary of the State of Missouri, shall constitute one Territory, and shall be, 
and hereby is, constituted and organized into a temporary government by the 
name of the Territory of Kansas." 

By reference to the map, it will be perceived that, in addition to all the 
country embraced within the limits of the present Territory of Kansas, it is 
proposed to include in the new Territory all the country between the south- 
ern boundary of the Territory, as now defined by law, and the parallel of 
36° 30', extending from the western boundary of the State of Missouri across 
more than twelve and a half degrees of longitude, and being about thirty-five 
miles in width at the eastern, and one hundred and five at the western ex- 
tremity. The eastern portion of this strip of country, which it is now pro- 
posed to incorporate within, and render subject to the jurisdiction of, the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas, was ceded, with other territory, to the Cherokee Indians by 
the treaties of the 6th of May 1828, April 12th, 1833, and May 23, 1836, for 
"a permanent home, and which shall, under the most solemn guarantee of the 
United States, be and remain theirs forever — A home that shall never, in 

ALL FUTURE TIME, BE EMBARRASSED BY HAVING EXTENDED AROUND IT THE 
LINES, OR PLACED OVER IT THE JURISDICTION OF A TERRITORY OR STATE, nor 

be pressed upon by the extension in any way of any of the limits of any exist- 
ing Territory or state." 

In view of this "most solemn guaranty of the United States" to the Cher- 
okees, your committee can not refrain from the expression of the hope and 
belief that the House of Representatives, in passing a bill to extend around 
this Indian country the lines of Kansas, and render it subject to the jurisdic- 
tion of that Territory, acted without due consideration, and probably without 



KANSAS AND HEE GOVEENMENTS. 305 

a full knowledge of these treaty stipulations. When the organic act of Kan- 
sas was passed in 1854, the parallel of thirty-seven was fixed upon as the 
southern boundary of the Territory instead of the line of thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes, with the view to the preservation of faith on the part of 
the United States toward these Indians ; and, lest injustice might be done to 
other Indian tribes who held their lands under treaties with the United 
States, it was expressly provided "that nothing in this act contained shall be 
construed to impair the rights of persons or property now pertaining to the 
Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished 
by treaty between the United States and such Indians, or to include any ter- 
ritory which, by treaty with any Indian tribe, is not, without the consent of 
said tribe, to be included within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any 
state or territoiy ; but all such territory shall be excepted out of the boundaries, 
and constitute no part of the Territory of Kansas." In these considerations 
your committee find insuperable objections to that portion of the bill from the 
House of Representatives which proposes to include within the limits, and 
render subject to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Kansas, any part of the 
country which is thus secured to the Indians by solemn treaty stipulations. 

Nor are the objections less formidable to incorporating within the limits of 
Kansas that portion of the Territory of New Mexico which lies north of the 
line of 36° 30', and east of the Rio Grande, and subjecting it to the operation 
of the other provisions of the bill. That part of New Mexico, containing 
about 15,000 square miles, was purchased from Texas by one of the acts 
known as the compromise measures of 1850, and formed a part of the terri- 
tory for which the United States paid the State of Texas ten millions of dol- 
lars. The second section of the act of Congress which contains the terms 
and conditions of the compact between the United States and Texas for the 
purchase of that Territory, incorporates the same in the Territory of New 
Mexico, with the following guarantee : " And provided further, that when ad- 
mitted as a state, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be re- 
ceived into the Union with or ivithout slavery, as their Constitution may pre- 
scribe at the time of their admission.'''' 

After asserting this great principle of state equality as applicable to every 
portion of New Mexico under the Constitution, and as guaranteed in the 
compact with Texas by fair intendment, so far as the country was acquired 
from that state, the seventh section of the same act provides "that the legis- 
lative power of the said Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legis- 
lation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provis- 
ions of this act" — thus leaving the people perfectly free to form and regulate 
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. 
It is now proposed in the bill under consideration to repudiate these guaran- 
tees and violate these great fundamental principles by annexing to Kansas 
all that portion of the country acquired from Texas which lies north of 36° 
30', and imposing upon it a prohibition of slavery forever, from and after the 
first day of January, 1858, regardless of the rights and wishes of the people 
who may inhabit the Territory. 

The twenty-fourth section of the bill is in the following words : 
"Sec. 24. And be it further enacted, That so much of the fourteenth sec- 
tion, and also so much of the thirty-second section, of the act passed at the 
first session of the thirty-third Congress, commonly known as the Kansas- 
Nebraska Act, and reads as follows, to wit : ' Except the eighth section of 
the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved 
March G, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principles of non-interven- 
tion by Congress with slavery in the states and Territories, as recognized by 
the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby 
declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this 



306 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, nor to exclude it there- 
from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States : Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed 
to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior 
to the act of the 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibit- 
ing, or abolishing slavery, ' be and the same is hereby repealed ; and the said 
eighth section of said act of the 6th of March, 1820, is hereby revived and 
declared to be in full force and effect within the said Territories of Kansas 
and Nebraska : Provided, however, That any person lawfully held to service 
in either of said Territories shall not be discharged from such service by rea- 
son of such repeal and revival of said eighth section, if such person shall be 
permanently removed from such Territory or Territories prior to the 1 st day 
of January, 1858 ; and any child or children born in either of said Terri- 
tories, of any female lawfully held to service, if in like manner removed 
without said Territories before the expiration of that date, shall not be, by- 
reason of any thing in this act, emancipated from any service it might have 
owed had this act never been passed : And provided further, That any person 
lawfully held to service in any other state or Territory of the United States, 
and escaping into either the Territory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be re- 
claimed and removed to the person or place where such service is due, under 
any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the subject." 

In the opinion of your committee there are various grave and serious ob- 
jections to this section of the bill. In the first place, it expressly repudiates 
and condemns the great fundamental principles of self-government and state 
equality which it was the paramount object of the Kansas-Nebraska Act to 
maintain and perpetuate, as affirmed in the following provision : " It being 
the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Ter- 
ritory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. 1 ' 

Not content with repealing this wise and just provision, and condemning 
the sound constitutional principles asserted in it, the bill proceeds to legalize 
and establish, for a limited time, hereditary slavery, not only in the Territory 
of Kansas (where there is no other local or affirmative law protecting it than 
the enactments of the Kansas Territorial Legislature, which have been al- 
leged to be illegal and void, and which the House of Representatives, by 
amendments to the appropriation bills, have instructed the President not to 
enforce), but also in all that part of New Mexico which it is proposed to in- 
corporate in the Territory of Kansas, and where slavery was prohibited by 
the Mexican law, and it is not pretended that there is any territorial enact- 
ment recognizing or establishing it. Having thus asserted and exercised the 
power of introducing and establishing slavery in the Territories by act of 
Congress, and declaring children hereafter born therein to be slaves for life 
and their posterity after them, provided they shall be removed therefrom 
within a special period, the bill proceeds to affirm and exercise the power of 
prohibiting slavery in the same Territories forever from and after January 1, 
1858, by enacting and putting in force the following provision, being the 8th 
section of the act passed March 6, 1820, to wit : 

"Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by 
France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north 
of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within 
the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary serv- 
itude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the parties shall 
have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited : Pro- 
vided cdways, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 307 

service is lawfully claimed in any state or Territory of the United States, 
such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claim- 
ing his or her labor or service as aforesaid." 

It will be observed that this 8th section of the Missouri Act (commonly 
called the Missouri Compromise) by its terms only applied to the territory 
acquired from France, known as the Louisiana Purchase, the western bound- 
ary of which was defined by the treaty with Spain in 1819, and subsequently 
by treaties with Mexico and Texas, to be the 100th meridian of longitude, 
while the bill under consideration, under the guise of reviving and restoring 
that provision, extends it more than seven degrees of longitude farther west- 
ward, and applies it to that large extent of territory to which it had no appli- 
cation in its original enactment. Nor can it be said with fairness or truth 
that this provision was applied to any portion of the territory in question by 
the "joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States," for the rea- 
son that the whole territory embraced within the limits of the Republic of 
Texas was admitted into the Union as one state, with the privilege of forming 
not exceeding four other states out of the State of Texas, " by the consent 
of said state," with the condition that "in such state or states'as should be 
formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery 
or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited." 

It was left discretionary with Texas to remain forever one state, and to re- 
tain the whole of her territory as slave territory, or to consent to a division, 
in which case the prohibition would take effect, by virtue of the compact, 
from the date of the formation of a new state within the limits of the Repub- 
lic of Texas north of 36° 30'. If, on the contrary, Texas should determine 
to withhold her assent, no such new state could ever be formed, and hence 
the prohibition would never take effect. All difficulty, however, on this point 
has been removed by the act of 1850, purchasing from Texas all that portion 
of her territory lying north of 36° 30', and incorporating it in the Territory 
of New Mexico, with the guarantee that, "when admitted as a state, the 
said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union 
with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of 
admission." Hence all the territory, to which it is now proposed to apply 
the Missouri restriction for the first time, under the plea of restoring the Mis- 
souri Compromise of the 6th of March, 1820, is protected from any such in- 
vasion of the rights of the inhabitants to form and regulate their own domes- 
tic affairs in their own way, b} r the solemn guaranties contained in the com- 
promise measures of 1850, which blotted out the geographical line as a di- 
viding-line between free territory and slave territory, and substituted for it 
the cardinal principle of self-government in accordance with the Constitu- 
tion. But it will also be observed that the bill under consideration does not 
propose to limit the restriction to the territory acquired from Texas, nor the 
country on the east side of the Rio Grande, but extend it across that river 
over a portion of the territory acquired from Mexico, which was never claim- 
ed by Texas, nor embraced within the Louisiana Purchase, and to which 
there is no pretext for asserting that the Missouri Compromise ever applied. 
If, in the application of the 8th section of the act of the 6th of March, 1820 
(commonly called the Missouri Compromise), over so large a district of coun- 
try to which it never had any previous application, it be the policy of the 
House of Representatives to return to the " obsolete idea" of a geographical 
line as a dividing-line in all time to come between slave territory and free 
territory, a perpetual barrier against the advancement of slavery on the one 
hand and free institutions on the other, the measure falls short of accom- 
plishing the whole of their object in not extending the line to the Pacific 
Ocean. Your committee can perceive many weighty considerations founded 
in policy, although wanting the sanction of sound constitutional principles, 



308 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

which might be urged in favor of such a measure, inasmuch as the barrier 
once erected from ocean to ocean — permitting slavery on the one side and 
prohibiting it on the other — if universally acquiesced in and religiously ob- 
served as a patriotic offering upon the altar of our common country, would 
put an end to the controversy forever, and form a bond of peace and broth- 
erhood in the future. But, unfortunately, when this expedient was proposed 
by the Senate in 1818, it was indignantly repudiated by the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and, as a consequence, the whole country was plunged into a 
whirlpool of sectional strife and angry crimination, which alarmed the great- 
est and purest patriots of the land for the safety of the republic, and was 
only rescued from the impending perils by the adoption of the compromise 
measures of 1850, which abandoned the policy of a geographical line, and 
substituted for it the great principles of self-government and state equality in 
obedience to the federal Constitution. In view of the history of the past, 
your committee can perceive no safety in the future except in a strict and re- 
ligious fidelity to the true principles of the Constitution as embodied in the 
adjustment of that unfortunate controversy, and adopted by the whole coun- 
try as rules of action, to be applied in all future time, when in the progress of 
events it should be necessary to organize Territories or admit new states. 
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was the logical sequence of the compromise meas- 
ures of 1850, and rendered imperatively necessary in order to establish and 
perpetuate the principles of self-government and state equality in the organ- 
ization of Territories and admission of new states. For these reasons your 
committee can not concur with the House of Representatives in the proposi- 
tion to blot out from the organic act of Kansas and Nebraska those essential 
provisions and cardinal principles, the faithful observance of which can alone 
preserve the just rights of the inhabitants of the Territories, and maintain the 
peace, unity, and fraternity of the republic. The great object is to withdraw 
the Slaveiy question from the halls of Congress, and remand its decision to 
the people of the several states and Territories, subject to no other conditions 
or restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States. 
Those provisions of the bill under consideration which introduce and estab- 
lish slavery, together with those which abolish and prohibit it, are alike ob- 
noxious on the score of principle, inasmuch as they assert and exercise the 
right of Congress to form and regulate the local affairs and domestic institu- 
tions of a distant and distinct people without their consent, and regardless of 
their rights and wishes. To avoid all misconstruction, however, upon this 
point, your committee deem it proper to remark, that their objections do not 
apply to that part of the bill which extends the provisions of the Fugitive 
Slave Law to the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and provides " that 
any person lawfully held to service in any other state or Territory, and escap- 
ing into either the Territory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be reclaimed and 
removed to the person or place where such service is due, under any law of 
the United States which shall be in force upon the subject." In this clause 
your committee are rejoiced to find a frank and conscientious acknowledg- 
ment of the duty of Congress to provide efficient laws for carrying into faith- 
ful execution the provision of the Constitution of the United States which 
provides for the rendition of fugitive slaves as well as all other obligations im- 
posed by that instrument. 

The preservation of our free institutions depends upon a faithful observance 
of the Constitution in all its parts ; and the assurance thus furnished that the 
representatives of the people are ever ready to provide new and additional 
guarantees when supposed to be necessary for the faithful performance of that 
constitutional obligation, which has been the subject of the severest criticism 
in some portions of the country, can not fail to gratify every true friend of 
the Union. In this case, however, no such legislation is necessary, inasmuch 



KANSAS AND HER GOVERNMENTS. 309 

as the organic act of Kansas and Nebraska extended the provisions of the 
Fugitive Slave Law to both of those Territories. 

[After quoting the 15th and 16th sections of the bill, the report continues :] 
It will be observed that these two sections recognize the validity and bind- 
ing force of the entire code of laws enacted at the Shawnee Mission, by the 
Legislature of Kansas Territory, and provide for the faithful execution of all 
those enactments except the criminal code. All justices of the peace, con- 
stables, sheriffs, and all other judicial and ministerial officers now in office, 
are required to continue to exercise and perform the duties of their respective 
offices. All these officers, with the exception of the governor, three judges, 
secretary, and marshal, and district attorney, were elected or appointed un- 
der the laws enacted by the Legislature of Kansas, while their powers, func- 
tions, and duties are all prescribed by those laws and none others. These 
officers are all required to continue to perform the duties of their respective 
offices, by observing and enforcing all the laws enacted at the Shawnee Mis- 
sion, except the criminal code. " All suits, process, and proceedings, civil 
and criminal, at law and in chancery, and all indictments and informations 
which shall be pending and undetermined in the courts of the Territory of 
Kansas or New Mexico when this act shall take effect, shall remain in said 
courts where pending, to be held, tried, prosecuted, and determined in such 
courts as though this act had not been passed." The election laws, and 
the laws concerning slaves and slavery, and all laws protecting the rights of 
persons and property, and affecting all the relations of life, are recognized as 
valid and required to be enforced, excepting criminal prosecutions, by 
information or indictment, for violating or disregarding the laws of the 
Legislature of Kansas, all such prosecutions are required to be forthwith dis- 
missed, and the prisoners set at liberty, and no new prosecutions are to be 
commenced for "any violation or disregard of said legislative enactments at 
any time." Such is the legislation provided for in these two sections of the 
bill. They recognize the validity of the laws enacted at Shawnee Mission, 
and provide for the enforcement of all of them except in cases of criminal 
prosecution. Your committee are unable to perceive how the passage of 
such a bill would restore peace, quiet, and security to the people of Kansas. 
It has been alleged that there are in that Territory organized bands of law- 
less and desperate men, who are in the constant habit of perpetrating deeds 
of violence — murdering and plundering the inhabitants, stealing their prop- 
erty, burning their houses, and driving peaceable citizens from the polls on 
election day, and even from the Territory. The remedy proposed in the 
bill is to grant to the perpetrators of these crimes a general amnesty for the 
past, and a full license in the future to continue their bloody work. 

There is no law in force in Kansas by which murder, robbery, larceny, ar- 
son, and other crimes known to the criminal codes of all civilized states, can 
be punished, except under the code enacted by the Legislature of Kansas at 
the Shawnee Mission. The provisions of "An Act for the Punishment of 
Crimes against the United States," approved April 30, 1790, are, by its terms, 
confined in its application to such crimes as shall be committed "within any 
fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or any other place or district of country 
under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," and "upon 
the high seas and navigable waters out of the jurisdiction of any particular 
state," but has never been held or construed to apply to the Territories of 
the United States. The act of the 3d of March, 1817, "to provide for the 
punishment of crimes and offenses committed within the Indian boundaries," 
extends the provisions of the said act of 1790 to the Indian country, but ex- 
pressly restricts its application, as its title imports, to crimes committed 
"within any town, district, or territory belonging to any nation or nations, tribe 
or tribes of Indians." Hence, the moment the Indian title is extinguished, 



310 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and the country placed under the jurisdiction of a Territorial government, it 
ceases to be " under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," 
and is no longer subject to the provisions of either of the above-cited acts. 
Thus it will be seen that if the bill from the House of Representatives should 
become a law with the provisions granting a general amnesty in respect to all 
past crimes, and unlimited license in the future to perpetrate such outrages 
as their own bad passions might instigate, there would be no law in force in 
Kansas to punish the guilty or protect the innocent. 

Inasmuch as the House of Representatives, by the passage of the bill under 
consideration, and the Senate, by its bill for the admission of Kansas into 
the Union, have each recognized the validity of the laws enacted by the Kan- 
sas Legislature at Shawnee Mission, so far as they are consistent with the 
Constitution and the organic act, and affirmed the propriety and duty of en- 
forcing the same, except in certain specified cases, it becomes important to 
inquire into the extent of the differences of opinion between the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, in respect to the particular laws which ought 
not to be enforced. The Senate has already declared in the bill for the ad- 
mission of Kansas into the Union that all laws and enactments in said Ter- 
ritory which are repugnant to, or in conflict with, the great principles of lib- 
erty and justice, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and 
the organic act, and embodied in the 18th section of that bill, shall be null 
and void, and that none such shall ever be enforced or executed in said Ter- 
ritory. * * * 

It is true that there is apparently another point of difference between the 
two houses, arising out of the question whether the people of Kansas shall be 
authorized to elect delegates to a convention (with proper and satisfactory 
safeguards against fraud, violence, and illegal voting), and form a Constitu- 
tion and state government preparatory to their admission into the Union, or 
whether the Territory shall be reorganized in accordance with the provisions 
of the bill from the House, and left, for some years to come, in that condi- 
tion. While the House of Representatives has recently expressed its prefer- 
ence for the latter proposition by the passage of the bill under consideration, 
your committee are not permitted to assume that they have insuperable ob- 
jections to the admission of Kansas at this time, for the reason that a few 
weeks previous they passed a bill to admit that Territory as a state, with the 
Topeka Constitution. Hence, the change of policy on the part of the House, 
in abandoning the state movement with the Topeka Constitution, and sub- 
stituting for it the proposition to reorganize the Territory and leave it in that 
condition, must be taken only as a strong expression of a decided preference 
on the part of the House for the bill under consideration, and not as conclu- 
sive evidence of insuperable objections to a fair bill, with proper and suitable 
guarantees against fraud and illegal voting, to authorize the people of Kansas 
to form a Constitution and state government at this time. 

The committee recommended that the bill be laid on the ta- 
ble. The bill was laid on the table in the Senate — yeas 35, 
nays 12, no one venturing to approve or endorse it in that 
body. 

The House did not act on either of the Senate bills relating 
to Kansas. In the General Appropriation Bill a clause was in- 
serted providing that no part of the money appropriated there- 
by to defray the expenses of the Territorial government in 
Kansas should be drawn from the treasury until all the crim- 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 311 

inal prosecutions on charges of treason in Kansas, or for viola- 
tion of the laws of the Territorial Legislature, should be dis- 
missed, and the accused parties discharged. 

To the Army Bill the House attached a clause that no part 
of the military force of the United States should be employed 
to aid in the enforcement of any act of the Kansas Legislature ; 
requiring the President to disband the armed militia of the 
Territory, to recall all the United States arms therein distrib- 
uted, and to " prevent armed men going into the Territory to 
disturb the peace or to aid in the enforcement or resistance of 
real or pretended law." 

These provisions the Senate struck out of the bills. The 
House refused to agree to the amendments of the Senate, and 
the Senate insisted on their action. Finally, the House yield- 
ed, except in the case of the Army Bill ; and, though various 
committees of conference were held, no agreement was had, 
and Congress, on the 18th of August, adjourned without pass- 
ing the Army Bill. 

The President convened Congress next day, and sent a mes- 
sage to both houses urging the necessity for the passage of ap- 
propriations for the army. The old Army Appropriation Bill 
was revived, and a new one was introduced ; but the House hir 
sisting on its Kansas legislation, both failed under the disagree- 
ing votes of the two houses. At last, on a third bill, on the 
30th of August, the House, by a vote of 101 to 98, receded 
from its position, and the bill passed. Congress adjourned the 
same day without any legislation for Kansas. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 

The Lecompton controversy was the most severe and pain- 
ful that has ever attended Mr. Douglas's public career. It 
was also one that elicited from him a greater exhibition of his 
native abilities than any other of the many in which he has 
been engaged. In 1846 he took the high strong ground of 
the Democratic party as declared at Baltimore upon the Ore- 
gon Boundary question. He sustained the President to the 
utmost of his ability. President Polk, however, induced by 
high and patriotic motives, thought proper to yield to the ad- 



312 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

vice of the co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power, and 
disposed of that question by abandoning 54° 40' and accepting 
49°. Upon the annexation of Texas, Mr. Douglas took ground 
in favor of extending and renewing the line of 36° 30' as a set- 
tlement of the Slavery question. He succeeded. In the fierce 
controversies on the Oregon Territorial Bill he renewed time 
and again the proposition to extend the Missouri Compromise 
line of 36° 30' to the Pacific; his efforts proved unavailing, 
and that bill passed. In 1850 he had supported and defended 
the Fugitive Slave Law and the compromise acts of that year 
— defended them in the presence of an armed and hostile meet- 
ing at Chicago, and succeeded. In 1 854 he had carried through 
successfully the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and, through violence 
and denunciation at home and throughout the North, had 
maintained with unfaltering nerve the rectitude of his conduct. 
In 1856 he had canvassed Illinois from one end to the other, 
urging the election of Mr. Buchanan upon the ground that the 
Democratic party and its candidates were pledged in the most 
solemn manner to secure to the people of the Territories the 
right of having slavery or not, as they of their own free action 
might determine. In answer to the cry that came up from 
every Republican orator — and in Illinois the leading men of 
that party from all parts of the country were on the stump — 
that the government of Kansas, her ofiicers, and Legislature, 
were in the hands of the " Border Ruffians," his answer was, 
that no matter who were placed over the people temporarily, 
no Constitution could be adopted nor state government erect- 
ed that was not called into being by the votes of the people 
in ratifying that Constitution. That the ultimate power of 
adopting a Constitution was in the hands of the people, and 
could not be taken from them, was the universal answer made 
to the charge that under the Nebraska Act Kansas would be 
made a slave state in defiance of the wishes of the people. On 
that defense, and on that pledge made every where through- 
out the campaign, Illinois preserved her ancient credit, and 
gave her electoral vote to Mr. Buchanan. 

After the inauguration of Mr. Buchanan it was deemed ad- 
visable to select as governor of Kansas some person of ability, 
who had also discretion to regulate that ability, and personal 
character entitling him to the respect of men of all parties, not 
only in the country generally, but particularly in Kansas. 



THE LEC0MPT0N CONTROVEKSY. 313 

Such. a man was Robert J. Walker. When tendered the office 
he peremptorily declined it. It was a position in which there 
was little credit to be gained, and a vast amount of responsi- 
bility and vexation. Those who had previously gone there 
had failed, and failed most miserably ; indeed, much of the 
trouble that had existed might have been traced to the incom- 
petency, personal unfitness, or corruption of those who had 
been selected as governors. Mr. Douglas was particularly 
anxious for the appointment of Mr. Walker, and took an act- 
ive part in inducing, him to consent to go to Kansas as gov- 
ernor. After long and serious consideration, Mr. Walker ac- 
cepted the office ; in so doing, he placed a condition on file 
that he was to be governor with the assurance that he was to 
tell the people of Kansas that they should have the privilege 
of voting directly for or against any Constitution that might 
be prepared for them. He proceeded to Kansas, and in his 
speeches he repeated this pledge, and in so doing stated that 
he made it with the knowledge and approval of the President 
and his cabinet; and that, unless the Constitution was submit- 
ted to the people for ratification or rejection, he should en- 
deavor to defeat it before Congress. 

Mr. Douglas, in Illinois, by speeches delivered at various 
parts of the state, referred to Governor Walker's course as a 
proof that the pledges he had made during the previous year, 
that Mr. Buchanan would faithfully carry out the spirit of the 
Kansas-Nebraska Act, were about to be redeemed to their 
letter. 

When the convention met in Kansas, and while it was in 
session, it became obvious that a large portion of the people, 
led on by fanatical and turbulent spirits, would not participate 
in forming a state government. While this was to be regret- 
ted, yet no person in Illinois believed that the convention 
would attempt to adopt a Constitution without providing for 
its submission to the people. Mr. Calhoun himself was sol- 
emnly pledged, in writing, to submit the Constitution to the 
people. Mr. Douglas had justified the course of Governor 
Walker and the administration. When Congress met, in De- 
cember, 1857, the President's Message indicated that, as a mat- 
ter of peace, the administration would, in the event of the 
Lecompton Constitution being presented, urge the admission 
of Kansas under that Constitution. 

O 



314 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The President's Message was coniniunicated on the 8th of 
December; after it was read, Mr. Douglas stated that he 
would take an early opportunity to express his views upon the 
subject of Kansas, in which he was constrained to say he dif- 
fered with the President to some extent. On the next day he 
addressed the Senate in the speech of which some extracts are 
given as follows : 

Mr. President, — When yesterday the President's Message was read at the 
clerk's desk, I heard it but imperfectly, and I was of the impression that the. 
President of the United States had approved and endorsed the action of the 
Lecompton Convention in Kansas. Under that impression, I felt it my duty 
to state that, while I concurred in the general views of the message, yet, so 
far as it approved or endorsed the action of that convention, I entirely dis- 
sented from it, and would avail myself of an early opportunity to state my 
reasons for my dissent. Upon a more careful and critical examination of 
the message, I am rejoiced to find that the President of the United States 
has not recommended that Congress shall pass a law to receive Kansas into 
the Union under the Constitution fonned at Lecompton. It is true that the 
tone of the message indicates a willingness on the part of the President to 
sign a bill, if we shall see proper to pass one, receiving Kansas into the Union 
under that Constitution. But, sir, it is a fact of great significance, and wor- 
thy of consideration, that the President has refrained from any endorsement 
of the convention, and from any recommendation as to the course Congress 
should pursue with regard to the Constitution there formed. 

The message of the President has made an argument — an unanswerable 
argument, in my opinion — against that Constitution, which shows clearly, 
Whether intended to arrive at the result or not, that, consistently with his 
views and his principles, he can not accept that Constitution. He has ex- 
pressed his deep mortification and disappointment that the Constitution itself 
has not been submitted to the people of Kansas for their acceptance or rejec- 
tion. He informs us that he has unqualifiedly expressed his opinions on that 
subject in his instructions to Governor Walker, assuming, as a matter of 
course, that the Constitution was to be submitted to the people before it could 
have any vitality or validity. He goes further, and tells us that the example 
set by Congress in the Minnesota case, by inserting a clause in the enabling 
act requiring the Constitution to be submitted to the people, ought to become 
a uniform rule, not to be departed from hereafter in any case. On these va- 
rious propositions I agree entirely With the President of the United States, 
and I am prepared now to sustain that uniform rule which he asks us to pur- 
sue in all other cases, by taking the Minnesota provision as our example. 

I rejoice, on a careful perusal of the message, to find so much less to dis- 
sent from than I was under the impression there was, from the hasry reading 
and imperfect hearing of the message in the first instance. In effect, he re- 
fers that document to the Congress of the United States — as the Constitution 
of the United States refers it — for us to decide upon it under our responsibil- 
ity. It is proper that he should have thus referred it to us as a matter for 
Congressional action, and not as an administration or executive measure, for 
the reason that the Constitution of the United States says that " Congress 
may admit new states into the Union." Hence we find the Kansas question 
before us now, not as an administration measure, not as an executive meas- 
ure, but as a measure coming before us for our free action, without any rec- 
ommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by the administration now 
in possession of the federal government. Sir, I propose to examine this ques- 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 315 

tion calmly and fairly, to see whether or not we can properly receive Kansas 
into the Union with the Constitution formed at Lecompton. 

The President, after expressing his regret, and mortification, and disap- 
pointment that the Constitution had not been submitted to the people in pur- 
suance of his instructions to Governor Walker, and in pursuance of Governor 
Walker's assurances to the people, says, however, that by the Kansas-Ne- 
braska Act the Slavery question only was required to be referred to the peo- 
ple, and the remainder of the Constitution was not thus required to be sub- 
mitted. He acknowledges that, as a general rule, on general principles, the 
whole Constitution should be submitted ; but, according to his understanding 
of the organic act of Kansas, there was an imperative obligation to submit 
the Slavery question for their approval or disapproval, but no obligation to 
submit the entire Constitution. In other words, he regards the organic act, 
the Nebraska Bill, as having made an exception of the Slavery clause, and 
provided for the disposition of that question in a mode different from that in 
which other domestic or local, as contradistinguished from federal questions, 
should be decided. Sir, permit me to say, with profound respect for the 
President of the United States, that I conceive that on this point he has com- 
mitted a fundamental error — an error which lies at the foundation of his 
whole argument on this matter. I can well understand how that distinguish- 
ed statesman came to fall into this error. He was not in the country at the 
time the Nebraska Bill was passed ; he was not a party to the controversy 
and the discussion that took place during its passage. He was then repre- 
senting the honor and the dignity of the country with great wisdom and dis- 
tinction at a foreign court. Thus deeply engrossed, his whole energies were 
absorbed in conducting great diplomatic questions, that diverted his attention 
from the mere Territorial questions and discussions then going on in the 
Senate and the House of Kepresentatives, and before the people at home. 
Under these circumstances, he may well have fallen into an error, radical 
and fundamental as it is, in regard to the object of the Nebraska Bill and 
the principle asserted in it. 

Now, sir, what was the principle enunciated by the authors and support- 
ers of that bill when it was brought forward ? Did we not come before the 
country and say that we repealed the Missouri restriction for the purpose of 
substituting and carrying out as a general rule the great principle of self-gov- 
ernment, which left the people of each state and each Territory free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the 
Constitution of the United States ? In support of that proposition, it was ar- 
gued here, and I have argued it wherever I have spoken in various states of 
the Union, at home and abroad, every where I have endeavored to prove 
that there was no reason why an exception should be made in regard to the 
Slavery question. I have appealed to the people, if we did not all agree, 
men of all parties, that all other local and domestic questions should be sub- 
mitted to the people. I said to them, "We agree that the people shall de- 
cide for themselves what kind of a judiciary system they will have ; we agree 
that the people shall decide what kind of a school system they will establish ; 
we agree that the people shall determine for themselves what kind of a bank- 
ing system they will have, or whether they will have any banks at all ; we 
agree that the people may decide for themselves what shall be the elective 
franchise in their respective states ; they shall decide for themselves what 
shall be the rule of taxation and the principles upon which their finance shall ■ 
be regulated ; we agree that they may decide for themselves the relations be- 
tween husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward ; and why 
should we not then allow them to decide for themselves the relations between 
master and servant ? Why make an exception of the Slavery question, by 
taking it out of that great rule of self-government which applies to all the 



316 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

other relations of life ?" The very first proposition in the Nebraska Bill was 
to show that the Missouri restriction, prohibiting the people from deciding 
the Slavery question for themselves, constituted an exception to a general 
rule, in violation of the principle of self-government; and hence that that 
exception should be repealed, and the Slavery question, like all other ques- 
tions, submitted to the people, to be decided for themselves. 

Sir, that was the principle on which the Nebraska Bill was defended by its 
friends. Instead of making the Slavery question an exception, it removed 
an odious exception which before existed. Its whole object was to abolish 
that odious exception, and make the rule general, universal in its application 
to all matters which were local and domestic, and not national or federal. 
For this reason was the language employed which the President has quoted ; 
that the eighth section of the Missouri Act, commonly called the Missouri 
Compromise, was repealed, because it was repugnant to the principle of non- 
intervention, established by the compromise measures of 1850, "it being the 
true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory 
or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, sub- 
ject only to the Constitution of the United States." We repealed the Mis- 
souri restriction because that was confined to slavery. That Avas the only 
exception there was to the general principle of self-government. That excep- 
tion was taken away for the avowed and express purpose of making the rule 
of self-government general and universal, so that the people should form and 
regulate all their domestic institutions in their own way. 

Sir, what would this boasted principle of popular sovereignty have been 
worth if it applied only to the negro, and did not extend to the white man? 
Do you think we could have aroused the sympathies and the patriotism of 
this broad republic, and have carried the presidential election last year, in 
the face of a tremendous opposition, on the principle of extending the right 
of self-government to the Negro question, but denying it as to all the rela- 
tions affecting white men ? No, sir. We aroused the patriotism of the 
country, and carried the election in defense of that great principle which al- 
lowed all white men to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit 
themselves — institutions applicable to white men as well as to black men — in- 
stitutions applicable to freemen as well as to slaves — institutions concerning 
all the relations of life, and not the mere paltry exception of the Slavery ques- 
tion. Sir, I have spent too much strength and breath, and health too, to es- 
tablish this great principle in the popular heart, now to see it frittered away by 
bringing it down to an exception that applies to the negro, and. does not ex- 
tend to the benefit of the white man. As I said before, I can well imagine 
how the distinguished and eminent patriot and statesman now at the head 
of the government fell into the error — for error it is, radical, fundamental — 
and, if persevered in, subversive of that platform upon which he was elevated 
to the presidency of the United States. 

Then, if the President be right in saying that by the Nebraska Bill the 
Slavery question must be submitted to the people, it follows inevitably that 
every other clause of the Constitution must also be submitted to the people. 
The Nebraska Bill said that the people should be left " perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way" — not the Slavery 
question, not the Maine Liquor Law question, not the Banking question, not 
the School question, not the Railroad question, but "their domestic institu- 
tions," meaning each and all the questions which are local, not national — 
state, not federal. I arrive at the conclusion that the principles enunciated 
so boldly and enforced with so much ability by the President of the United 
States, require us, out of respect to him and the platform on which he was 
elec d, to send this whole question back to the people of Kansas, and enable 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVEESY. 317 

them to say whether or not the Constitution which has been framed, each 
and every clause of it, meets their approbation. 

The President, in his message, has made an unanswerable argument in fa- 
vor of the principle which requires this question to be sent back. It is stated 
in the message with more clearness and force than any language which I can 
command ; but I can draw your attention to it, and refer you to the argu- 
ment in the message, hoping that you will take it as a part of my speech — as 
expressing my idea more forcibly than I am able to express it. The Presi- 
dent says that a question of great interest, like the Slavery question, can not 
be fairly decided by a convention of delegates, for the reason that the dele- 
gates are elected in districts, and in some districts a delegate is elected by a 
small majority ; in others by an overwhelming majority ; so that it often 
happens that a majority of the delegates are one way, while a majority of the 
people are the other way ; and therefore it would be unfair, and inconsistent 
with the great principle of popular sovereignty, to allow a body of delegates, 
not representing the popular voice, to establish domestic institutions for the 
mass of the people. This is the President's argument to show that you can 
not have a fair and honest decision without submitting it to the popular vote. 
The same argument is conclusive with regard to every other question, as well 
as with regard to Slavery. 

But, Mr. President, it is intimated in the message that, although it was an 
unfortunate circumstance, much to be regretted, that the Lecompton Conven- 
tion did not submit the Constitution to the people, yet perhaps it may be 
treated as regular, because the convention was called by a Territorial Legis- 
lature which had been repeatedly recognized by the Congress of the United 
States as a legal body. I beg senators not to fall into an error as to the Presi- 
dent's meaning on this point. He does not say, he does not mean, that this 
Convention had ever been recognized by the Congress of the United States 
as legal or valid. On the contrary, he knows, as we here know, that during 
last Congress I reported a bill from the Committee on Territories to author- 
ize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a Constitution for themselves. 
Subsequently, the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a 
substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself 
in consultation, was passed by the Senate. It is known in the country as 
"the Toombs Bill." It authorized the people of Kansas Territory to assem- 
ble in convention and form a Constitution preparatory to their admission into 
the Union as a state. That bill, it is well known, was defeated in the House 
of Representatives. It matters not, for the purpose of this argument, what 
was the reason of its defeat. Whether the reason was a political one ; wheth- 
er it had reference to the then existing contest for the presidency ; whether 
it was to keep open the Slavery question ; whether it was a conviction that 
the bill would not be fairly carried out ; whether it was because there were 
not people enough in Kansas to justify the formation of a state — no matter 
what the reason was,' the House of Representatives refused'to pass that bill, 
and thus denied to the people of Kansas the right to form a Constitution and. 
state government at this time. So far from the Congress of the United 
States having sanctioned or legalized the convention which assembled at Le- 
compton, it expressly withheld its assent. The assent has not been given, 
either in express terms or by implication ; and being withheld, this Kansas 
Constitution has just such validity and just such authority as the Territorial 
Legislature of Kansas could impart to it without the assent and in opposition 
to the known will of Congress. 

Now, sir, let me ask what is the extent of the authority of a Territorial 
Legislature as to calling a Constitutional convention without the consent of 
Congress ? Fortunately this is not a new question ; it does not now arise for 
the first time. When the Topeka Constitution was presented to the Senate 



318 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

nearly two years ago, it was referred to the Committee on Territories, with a 
variety of measures relating to Kansas. The committee made a full report 
upon the whole subject. That report reviewed all the irregular cases which 
had occurred in our history in the admission of new states. The committee 
acted on the supposition that whenever Congress had passed an enabling act 
authorizing the people of a Territory to form a state Constitution, the con- 
vention was regular, and possessed all the authority which Congress had del- 
egated to it ; but whenever Congress had failed or refused to pass an en- 
abling act, the proceeding was irregular and void, unless vitality was im- 
parted to it by a subsequent act of Congress, adopting and confirming it. 
The friends of the Topeka Constitution insisted that, although their proceed- 
ings were irregular, they were not so irregular but that Congress could cure 
the error by admitting Kansas with that Constitution. They cited a variety 
of cases, among others the Arkansas case. In my report, sanctioned by every 
member of the Committee on Territories except the senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Collamer], I reviewed the Arkansas case as well as the others, and af- 
firmed the doctrine established by General Jackson's administration, and 
enunciated in the opinion of Mr. Attorney General Butler, a part of which 
opinion was copied into the report and published to the country at the time. 

Mr. Douglas then discussed the question in all its aspects, 
and closed his speech as follows : 

" The President tells us in his message that the whole party pledged our 
faith and our honor that the Slavery question should be submitted to the 
people, without any restriction or qualification whatever. Does this schedule 
submit it without qualification? It qualifies it by saying, "You may vote 
on slavery if you will vote for the Constitution, but you shall not do so with- 
out doing that." That is a very important qualification — a qualification that 
controls a man's vote, and his action, and his conscience, if he is an honest 
man — a qualification confessedly in violation of our platform. We are told 
by the President that our faith and our honor are pledged that the Slavery 
clause should be submitted without qualification of any kind whatever ; and 
now am I to be called upon to forfeit my faith and my honor in order to ena- 
ble a small minority of the people of Kansas to defraud the majority of that 
people out of their elective franchise ? Sir, my honor is pledged ; and before 
it shall be tarnished I will take whatever consequences personal to myself 
may come ; but never ask me to do an act which the President, in his mes- 
sage, has said is a forfeiture of faith, a violation of honor, and that merely 
for the expediency of saving the party. I will go as far as any of you to 
save the party. I have as much heart in the great cause that binds us to- 
gether as any man living. I will sacrifice any thing short of principle and 
honor for the peace of the party ; but if the party will not stand by its prin- 
ciples, its faith, its pledges, I will stand there, and abide whatever conse- 
quences may result from the position. 

Let me ask you, why force this Constitution down the throats of the peo- 
ple of Kansas in opposition to their wishes and in violation of our pledges ? 
What great object is to be attained ? Cui bono ? What are you to gain by 
it ? Will you sustain the party by violating its principles? Do you propose 
to keep the party united by forcing a division ? Stand by the doctrine that 
leaves the people perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions for 
themselves, in their own way, and your party will be united and irresistible 
in power. Abandon that great principle, and the party is not worth saving, 
and can not be saved after it shall be violated. I trust we are not to be 
rushed upon this question. Why shall it be done? Who is to be benefited? 
Is the South to be the gainer ? Is the North to be the gainer ? Neither the 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 319 

North nor the South has the right to gain a sectional advantage by trickery 
or fraud. 

But I am besought to wait until I hear from the election on the 21st of 
December. I am told that perhaps that will put it all right, and will save the 
whole difficulty. How can it ? Perhaps there may be a large vote. There 
may be a large vote returned. [Laughter.] But I deny that it is possible 
to have a fair vote on the Slavery clause ; and I say that it is not possible to 
have any vote on the Constitution. Why Avait for the mockery of an elec- 
tion, when it is provided, unalterably, that the people can not vote — when the 
majority are disfranchised ? 

But I am told on all sides, "Oh, just wait; the pro-slavery clause will be 
voted down." That does - not obviate any of my objections; it does not di- 
minish any of them. You have no more right to force a free-state Constitu- 
tion on Kansas than a slave-state Constitution. If Kansas wants a slave- 
state Constitution, she has a right to it ; if she wants a free-state Constitu- 
tion, she has a right to it. It is none of my business which way the Slavery 
clause is decided. I care not whether it is voted down or voted up. Do 
you suppose, after the pledges of my honor that I would go for that princi- 
ple, and leave the people to vote as they please, that I would now degrade my- 
self by voting one way if the Slavery clause be voted down, and another way 
if it be voted up ? I care not how that vote may stand. I take it for grant- 
ed that it will be voted out. I think I have seen enough in the last three 
days to make it certain that it will be returned out, no matter how the vote 
may stand. [Laughter.] 

Sir, I am opposed to that concern, because it looks to me like a system of 
trickery and jugglery to defeat the fair expression of the will of the people. 
There is no necessity for crowding this measure, so unfair, so unjust as it is 
in all its aspects, upon us. Why can we not now do what we proposed to do 
in the last Congress ? We then voted through the Senate an enabling act, 
called "the Toombs Bill," believed to be just and fair in all its provisions, 
pronounced to be almost perfect by the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Hale], only he did not like the man, then President of the United States, who 
would have to make the appointments. Why can we not take that bill, and, 
out of compliment to the President, add to it a clause taken from the Minne- 
sota Act, which he thinks should be a general rule, requiring the Constitution 
to be submitted to the people, and pass that ? That unites the party. You 
all voted with me for that bill at the last Congress. Why not stand by the 
same bill now ? Ignore Lecompton, ignore Topeka ; treat both those party 
movements as irregular and void; pass a fair bill — the one that we framed 
ourselves when we were acting as a unit ; have a fair election — and you will 
have peace in the Democratic party, and peace throughout the country, in 
ninety days. The people want a fair vote. They never will be satisfied with- 
out it. They never should be satisfied without a fair vote on their Constitu- 
tion. 

If the Toombs Bill does not suit my friends, take the Minnesota Bill of the 
last session — the one so much commended by the President in his message as 
a model. Let us pass that as an enabling act, and allow the people of all par- 
ties to come together and have a fair vote, and I will go for it. Frame any 
other bill that secures a fair, honest vote, to men of all parties, and carries out 
the pledge that the people shall be left free to decide on their domestic insti- 
tutions for themselves, and I will go with you with pleasure, and with all the. 
energy I may possess. But if this Constitution is to be forced down our 
throats, in violation of the fundamental principle of free government, under a 
mode of submission that is a mockery and insult, I will resist it to the last. I 
have no fear of any party associations being severed. I should regret any so- 
cial or political estrangement, even temporarily; but if it must be, if I can 



320 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

not act with you and preserve my faith and my honor, I will stand on the great 
principle of popular sovereignty, which*declares the right of all people to he 
left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way. I will follow that principle wherever its logical consequences may take 
me, and I will endeavor to defend it against assault from any and all quar- 
ters. No mortal man shall be responsible for my action but myself. By my 
action I will compromit no man. 

The galleries as well as the hall of the Senate Chamber, and 
every approach to it, were densely crowded. When he con- 
cluded his remarks there was an involuntary burst of applause, 
surpassing any thing that had ever before violated the dignity 
and decorum of that body. Some debate ensued as to the 
propriety of expelling all save the members of the Senate, but 
the matter eventually dropped without any such action. 

Mr. Bigler followed in a brief reply, and Mr. Mason address- 
ed himself to a single point. Mr. Douglas, having responded 
to Mr. Mason, was about addressing himself to the remarks of 
Mr. Bigler, when a debate ensued, the importance of which 
consists solely in the refutation of a charge rather intimated 
than preferred by the senator from Pennsylvania. What was 
said is taken from the " Globe," as follows : 

Mr. Douglas. Yesterday a speech was read to this body, showing that the 
President had held that doctrine twenty years ago, and he had never dis- 
avowed it since. In that speech the President declared that a Territorial 
Legislature had no power to create a convention to form a Constitution ; and 
that, if they attempted to exercise such a power, it would be an act of usurp- 
ation — a high crime — a crime subject to impeachment. The President has 
held these doctrines for twenty years. He held them at the same time that 
General Jackson's administration held them in regard to the Arkansas case. 
The Democratic party has held them ever since. I have proved to-day that 
the Democratic party, so far as it is bound by our action one year and a half 
ago, asserted the same doctrine in the Kansas report which I made from 
the Committee on Territories. I firmly believed then that that committee 
was a faithful exponent of the views of the Kansas-Nebraska party. In that 
report we set forth that doctrine, and, as the senator well knows, we pub- 
lished and circulated during the campaign, in order to elect Mr. Buchanan, 
three hundred thousand copies of that report as a party document. I paid 
for one hundred thousand copies of them myself. I never heard it intimated 
that the doctrine then expounded, and on which the President was elected, 
was repudiated by any portion of the party, and therefore I said that the 
President of the United States was with me on this question, so far as his 
record shows. 

Mr. Bigler. I must enter my protest and claim the benefit of the statute 
of limitation, which is applicable to a shorter period than twenty years. I 
can not consent that the senator from Illinois shall hold the President to 
principles which he may have laid down twenty years ago, under entirely 
different circumstances from those which now exist. It is not half so long 
since the President of the United States declared that the Missouri line would 
be the best compromise of the slavery difficulty that could be made. In 
1848, the senator from Plinois advocated the extension of the Missouri line 



THE LECOMPTON CONTKOVEESY. 321 

to the Pacific Ocean, yet he was the man who proposed and insisted that it 
ought to be repealed. He was at one time in favor of extending it, and 
therefore made his principle acceptable to him under the circumstances then 
existing ; he Mas willing then to take it. Now, would it not be very ungen- 
erous in me to hold to-day that the senator's argument was a fallacy, because 
he at one time advocated* the extension of the Missouri line ? 

Mr. Douglas. I deny the right of the senator from Pennsylvania to inter- 
pose the statute of limitations upon this occasion, on the well-known prin- 
ciple that no one but the authorized attorney of the party can interpose that 
plea. [Laughter.] As the senator has disavowed the authority to act and 
speak for the President, he has no right to file the plea. If the President of 
the United States himself will interpose the plea, I shall admit it. I believe 
in a statute of limitations in regard to political opinions. I need one very 
much myself on many points. I am not one of those who boast that they 
have never changed an opinion. Sir, it is a matter of gratification to me 
that I feel each year that I am a little wiser than I was the year before ; and 
I do not know that a month has ever passed over my head in which I have 
not modified some opinion in some degree, but I am always frank enough to 
avow it. Still, it is fair for any man to hold me to a former opinion until I 
have expressed a contrary one. 

Has the President of the United States ever withdrawn the opinion of 
which I have spoken, expressed twenty years ago, in regard to the power of 
the Territorial Legislature ? I show that the Democratic party stood by it 
last year. Is not that rather a short period for the application of the statute 
of limitations ? I hope you are not going to cut off the Cincinnati Conven- 
tion by that statute. I deny your right to plead the statute against the Cin- 
cinnati Convention until after the meeting of the Charleston Convention. 
The Cincinnati platform is the fundamental, unalterable law of the Demo- 
cratic party until the meeting of the Charleston Convention. Congressmen 
have no right to change it. Senators have no right to change it. Cabinets 
can not alter it ; and the President, I know, will not attempt to do so. I 
deny the senator's right to come in with this plea for the President, implying 
thereby that he has changed his opinion, when that same opinion was last 
year the doctrine of the Democratic party, and can not be changed for four 
years to come by the party organization. I am perfectly at home when you 
come to the discussion of the question whether a man is inside the party or 
not. I have been in the habit of discussing these platforms and helping to 
make them. I stand now where I stood last year ; not because I am unwill- 
ing to change, but because I believed I was right then, and I believe I am 
right now. 

The senator from Pennsylvania has told me that I actually voted for the 
Toombs Bill last year. That is true ; and, as I said to-day, I am ready to 
vote for it again. He voted for it last year, and so did the gentlemen around 
me. Let us vote for it again, and have no quarrels among ourselves. It 
will not do to taunt me with having voted for a measure last year which I am 
for now, but which you are not for. 

Mr. Bigler. I certainly did not present the case in that spirit at all, nor 
did I look at it in that point of view. I gave it no such aspect whatever. I 
presented it in this point of view : the senator, in his speech to-day, had held 
that it was a great wrong upon the people of Kansas to put a government in 
operation through the agency of their Territorial laws and a Territorial con- 
vention, the whole of which had not been submitted to their approbation ; 
and yet only a short year ago he voted for an enabling act which put a state 
government into operation without submitting any part of it to the people. 
That is what I said. 

Mr. Douglas. My explanation of that is to be given in the precise language 

O 2 



322 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

of the explanation of the President of the United States in his message, in 
which he says that, in his instructions* to Governor Walker, he took it for 
granted that the Constitution was to be submitted to the people under a law 
that was silent on the subject. The Toombs Bill being silent, I took it for 
granted too, and I supposed every other man did, that it was to be submitted. 
I merely adopted the same process of reasoning that the President himself 
says he adopted, and which he was amazed to find was not carried out. If 
the President was right in taking that for granted, I do not know why I was 
not right in taking the same thing for granted. 

Again, I will ask the senator to show me an intimation from any one mem- 
ber of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs Bill, and in the Union 
from any quarter, that the Constitution was not to be submitted to the peo- 
ple. I will venture to say, that on all sides of the chamber it was so under- 
stood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood it was not, 
they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, we should 
certainly have yielded to it and put in the clause. That is a discovery made 
since the President found out that it was not safe to take it for granted that 
that would be done which ought in fairness to have been done. 

Mr. Bigler. I do not pretend to know any thing on this subject which may 
not appear in the Journal of Debates. I shall not hold the senator to any 
thing that does not appear there ; but this I will say, that I was present when 
that subject was discussed by senators before the bill was introduced, and the 
question was raised and discussed whether the Constitution, when formed, 
should be submitted to a vote of the people. It was held by those most in- 
telligent on the subject, that in view of all the difficulties surrounding that 
Territory, the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular vote, it 
would be better that there should be no provision in the Toombs Bill ; and 
it was my understanding, in all the intercourse I had, that that convention 
would make a Constitution and send it here without submitting it to the 
popular vote. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator says he will not undertake to state any thing 
that did not occur here in debate and appear in the published debates, in- 
timating that he has no right, as an honorable man, to do it. I will not un- 
dertake to intimate and insinuate that which, as an honorable man, I am not 
at liberty to express in the body. If he means to insinuate that I Avas present 
at such a debate and sanctioned that doctrine, let him say so. If he is not 
willing to say it, let him not insinuate that I was present, privately sanction- 
ing a measure that I now publicly am not willing to avow. 

Mr. Bigler. If I am constantly at fault in matters of courtesy, it is painful 
to me. I never have so failed to observe propriety before. Perhaps I have 
spoken wrongfully on this subject. I have told the senator from Illinois be- 
fore that I should not in any way attempt to reflect upon him. 

Mr. Douglas. I will bring this to a close. I will release the senator from 
all secrecy, if there is any, and ask if he knows that, directly or indirectly, 
publicly or privately, any where on the face of the earth, I was ever present 
at such a consultation, where it was called to my attention, and I agreed to 
pass it without submission to the people ? I now ask him that question, with 
all secrecy removed. 

Mr. Bigler. I shall say distinctly what my recollection is clear about, re- 
gardless of any consequences. I remember very well that that question was 
discussed in the house of the senator. I am not certain that he participated 
in that discussion, but I know that I did. It was urged — I think more es- 
pecially by the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], not now in his seat — 
that, under all the circumstances, there ought not to be a provision inserted 
requiring the Constitution to be submitted to the people. I do not say that 
the senator from Illinois participated in the discussion. My recollection is 



THE LECOMPTON €ONTEOVEESY. 323 

not clear on that point ; but it is clear that, in an interview with some three 
or four members, who were talking about the introduction of that bill, that 
subject was talked over. I have said that it was always my understanding 
that that convention would have a right to make a Constitution, and send it 
here, without submitting it to the people. 

Mr. Douglas. I never have insisted that there was a clause in that bill ex- 
pressly requiring the Constitution to be submitted to the people. The point 
I have made was, that being silent, it was understood as a matter of course 
that it was to be submitted. Such a clause was unnecessary. That was the 
President's construction of the act of the Kansas Legislature. That was my 
construction of the Toombs Bill. That I may have known there was no such 
clause is unquestionably true ; but that I was a party, either by private con- 
ferences at my own house, or otherwise, to a plan to force a Constitution on 
the people of Kansas without submission, is not true. That the bill was silent 
on the subject is true, and my attention was called to that about the time it 
was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that powers not delegated 
were reserved, and that, of course, the Constitution would be submitted to 
the people. The point I made on the senator was. that he insinuated that I 
was a party to such an arrangement privately, which he was not at liberty to 
tell, and yet he insinuated the very fact that he, as an honorable man, could 
not tell. If a point of honor has restrained him from telling it, a point of 
honor should restrain him from insinuating it. 

Mr. Bigler. In my anxiety to relieve the feelings of the senator from Illi- 
nois, I fear I may have done injustice to myself. Now, sir, I wish to account 
for the impression which was on my mind, and to make no imputation on 
him. I had called his attention to the Toombs Bill because it was in deroga- 
tion of the doctrine he has laid down here to-day. When he says there was 
no sentiment of that kind declared in the Senate, I say I hold that senator 
only to the record here — only to the Journal of Debates. What next, sir ? 
I justified myself in what I had said by an allusion to a discussion of that 
precise question with members of this body. My purpose was to show the 
senator that I should not have made this allegation without some clear im- 
pression on my mind. That impression, I tell the senator from Illinois, was 
strengthened by other things. It was strengthened by the fact that when he 
made the preparatory bill for the admission of Minnesota, he provided, in ex- 
press words, that the Constitution should be submitted. If it is an inference 
irresistible that a Constitution must be submitted when the enabling act is 
silent, why insert it in the Minnesota Bill? There it is inserted, and I 
thought it reasonable — I always believed it — I believed it was wise to put it 
in that shape, in view of the surroundings in the Territory of Kansas. I do 
not impugn the senator's integrity, or his patriotism, or his high motive, or 
his courage, or any thing that pertains to him personally. He has had no 
more constant admirer than myself — none who has defended him oftener. I 
thought I was doing justice to myself. On account of what I heard in regard 
to the Minnesota Bill, I got the impression that unless Congress required the 
submission of the Constitution to a vote of the people, that course need not 
be pursued. 

Mr. Hah. I rise simply for the purpose of making an inquiry. This mat- 
ter has been pretty tolerably well elucidated ; but the honorable senator from 
Pennsylvania, if I did not misunderstand him, said that, at a private meeting 
at the house of the honorable senator from Illinois, there was a talk that, 
owing to some peculiar circumstances, it was not prudent to submit the Con- 
stitution to the people of Kansas. I desire him to state what some of those 
peculiar circumstances were which rendered it inexpedient and unpatriotic. 
I have not the slightest controversy with the senator from Illinois on that 
subject. 



324 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Mr. Bigler. The senator from New Hampshire is much more familiar with 
the surroundings in Kansas than he affects to be to-day. 

Mr. Hale. I did not know what you talked of over there. 

Mr. Bigler. I had reference (and I think I made that very clear) to the 
condition of the Territory, the bitter feud tbat divided the people there, the 
strife and violence that were likely to interfere with a fair election. I said 
distinctly that the circumstances rendered a fair exercise of the elective fran- 
chise exceedingly difficult. Who has said more on that point than the sen- 
ator from New Hampshire ? "Who has talked more about usurpation and vi- 
olence there, and keeping free-state men from the polls ? I had the same 
impressions then that I have now. In all the votes I gave I was controlled 
and impelled by nearly the same motive as now, and that was to get Kansas 
into the Union, whenever she came up in an allowable shape, in order to set- 
tle the controversy. 

Mr. Douglas. I must ask the senator from Pennsylvania whether he means 
to intimate that in my house, or any other, these considerations were urged 
why we should pass the bill without a provision to submit the Constitution to 
the people ? Does he mean to say that I ever was, privately or publicly, in 
my own house or any other, in favor of a Constitution without its being sub- 
mitted to the people ? 

Mr. Bigler. I have made no such allegation. 

Mr. Douglas. You have allowed it to be inferred. I do not want a false 
impression to be inferred because the scene is located in my private parlor. 
Of what importance is it whether in my house or yours, unless I was a party 
to an agreement of that kind ? If I was, let it be said ; if I was not, acquit 
me of it. 

Mr. Bigler. I stated that I had no recollection of the senator participating 
in that conversation. 

Mr. Douglas. Well, if I had nothing to do with it, and was not there, I do 
not know what my house had to do with it, 

Mr. Bigler, What I said was the truth, and that is the only defense I have 
to make before the Senate, and the country, and my God. 

Mr. Douglas's speech was published very extensively. It 
met a hearty response in the Northwest. An immense mass- 
meeting was held in Chicago some ten days after, and resolu- 
tions of the most unqualified approbation of the doctrines of 
the speech were enthusiastically adopted. A resolution ex- 
pressing the " unabated confidence" of the Democracy in Mr. 
Buchanan's patriotism, and that he would administer the gov- 
ernment in accordance with the principles asserted in Mr. 
Douglas's 9th of December speech, was also adoj)ted. A mass- 
meeting was also held at Janesville, Wisconsin, on the 30th of 
December, at which several distinguished men, including the 
Hon. C. H. Larrabee, now in Congress, took an active part. 
Meetings were held in almost all the counties of the state, all 
endorsing Mr. Douglas's course. 

On the 10th Mr. Douglas gave notice of a bill to authorize 
the people of Kansas to form a Constitution, preparatory to 
their admission into the Union as a state ; and on the 19th he 






THE LECOMPTON CONTKOVEESY. 325 

introduced said bill, which was referred to the Committee on 
Territories. 

On the 16th, a week after Mr. Douglas's speech on Lecomp- 
ton, Mr. Allen, of Rhode Island, proposed a list of committees 
— agreed upon in Democratic caucus. On this list the Commit- 
tee of Territories was thus named. 

Douglas (chairman), Jones (Iowa), Sebastian (Arkansas), 
Fitzpatrick (Alabama), Green (Missouri), Collamer (Vermont), 
Wade (Ohio). The list, as proposed, was subsequently adopt- 
ed, every Democratic senator present having voted for it. 

On that same day Mr. Green replied to Mr. Douglas, who 
rejoined. On the 21st Mr. Bigler made a set speech in reply 
to Mr. Douglas, who rejoined ; and on the 22d Mr. Fitch made 
a speech in reply to Mr. Douglas, who rejoined. On the 13th 
of January Mr. Fitch made a personal explanation upon the 
subject of the resolutions passed by the Indiana Democratic 
State Convention upon the subject of submitting Constitutions 
to the people for approval or rejection, and Mr. Douglas re- 
joined. The debate progressed on the motion to refer the 
President's message. 

On the 2d of February the President transmitted to the Sen- 
ate the Lecompton Constitution, with a recommendation that 
Kansas be admitted as a state under it ; and on the motion to 
refer the Constitution and the message to the Committee on 
Territories, the subject was debated day after day, until the 
8th, when the motion to refer was agreed to. 

It is not the object or the intention of the writer of this book 
to go into the details of the Lecompton controversy. In an- 
other chapter — that referring to the election in Illinois in 1858, 
something will be said of the history and events attending that 
controversy which does not appear on the Congressional rec- 
ord. Another reason is, that the unfortunate and deplorable 
affair has long since been consigned to a grave from which it 
is confidently hoped it may never rise again. Those who cher- 
ish and preserve the animosities that sprung from it are com- 
paratively few in number, and should be left to the task of 
nourishing a hatred in which no Democrat has any participa- 
tion. If the Lecompton question had not served them with a 
pretext for pursuing Mr. Douglas, they would doubtless have 
found some other that would have answered their purpose fully 
as well. We do not speak of those who opposed Mr. Douglas 



326 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

or denounced his views on Lecompton because of a difference 
of opinion upon the question. Men who differ honestly upon 
a question of policy rarely ever indulge in hatred toward those 
who oppose them ; but the men who adopted the policy of ad- 
mitting Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, not because 
they thought it right, but because they wished, on account of 
personal griefs, to crush Stephen A.Douglas, when baffled, have 
not submitted with a good grace, nor do they relax in their 
bitterness toward him. In these feelings the Democracy, as a 
party, have no share, and a charitable consideration for the 
weaknesses of poor human nature suggests that the curtain be 
dropped upon the sufferings of wounded pride. 

The admission of Kansas as a slave state, even against the 
ascertained wishes of the people of Kansas, was not asked for 
by the South. It was tendered to the South by a majority 
of the Northern Democrats in the executive and legislative 
branches of government. While those Northern Democrats 
who did not approve of that policy resisted it, we are not aware 
that any of them complained of the South for accepting what 
was tendered them by the North. It was thrust upon them by 
the North, and Northern Democrats readily appreciated the 
responsibility of Southern men refusing the gift. On the Le- 
compton question the Democrats of Illinois had no reproaches 
or complaints against the South. They deprecated the policy 
as unjust, as a departure from well-established principles, and 
whatever difficulty ensued was a difficulty forced upon them, 
not by the South, but by those Northern Democrats who sup- 
ported Lecompton. "We propose, therefore, to close this branch 
of Mr. Douglas's Congressional history by a brief record of 
what was done in Congress upon the subject. 

On the 11th of January the President sent to Congress the 
Constitution of the State of Minnesota, which, on motion of 
Mr. Douglas, was referred to the Committee on Territories. 
On the 26th he reported a bill for the admission of that state. 

On the 18th of February, Mr. Green, as the organ of the 
committee, by the direction of a majority of its members, re- 
ported a bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union. Mr. 
Douglas made a minority report expressive of his views. An 
additional report, containing an expression of the views of 
Messrs. Collamer and Wade, was also made. 

On the 1st of March the bill was taken up, Mr. Green enter- 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 327 

ing at large into a discussion of the measure. It was then de- 
bated from day to day. On the 15th an attempt was made to 
force a vote, and the session was protracted until after six 
o'clock the next morning ; but the Senate adjourned without 
any action on the bill. The debate was continued throughout 
that week. 

On the 23d of March Mr. Crittenden submitted his amend- 
ment, subsequently known as the " Crittenden Montgomery" 
amendment. This proposition substantially provided that Kan- 
sas should be admitted as a state into the Union with the Le- 
compton Constitution ; but, as the fact whether the Constitu- 
tion was fairly made was disputed, the admission of the state 
was conditional upon that instrument being first submitted to 
a vote of the people, and assented to by a majority of them. 
In case the Constitution should be approved, the President 
was to declare Kansas a state of the Union ; in case the Con- 
stitution was rejected, the bill authorized the people to elect 
delegates to a new convention, etc., etc. This amendment was 
rejected — yeas 24, nays 34. After some amendments in the 
phraseology of the bill, it was read a third time and passed. 
The following was the vote on the passage : 

Yeas — Allen of Rhode Island, Bayard of Delaware, Benjamin of Louisi- 
ana, Biggs of North Carolina, Bigler of Pennsylvania, Bright of Indiana, 
Brown of Mississippi, Clay of Alabama, Evans of South Carolina, Fitch of 
Indiana, Fitzpatrick of Alabama, Green of Missouri, Gwin of California, 
Hammond of South Carolina, Henderson of Texas, Houston of Texas, Hunt- 
er of Virginia, Iverson of Georgia, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennes- 
see, Jones of Iowa, Kennedy of Maryland, Mallory of Florida, Mason of Vir- 
ginia, Pearce of Maryland, Polk of Missouri, Sebastian of Arkansas, Slidell 
of Louisiana, Thompson of Kentucky, Thomson of New Jersey, Toombs of 
Georgia, Wright of New Jersey, Yulee of Florida — 33. 

Nays — Bell of Tennessee, Broderick of California, Chandler of Michigan, 
Clark of New Hampshire, Collamer of Vermont, Crittenden of Kentucky, 
Dixon of Connecticut, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Douglas of Illinois, Durkee 
of Wisconsin, Fessenden of Maine, Foot of Vermont, Foster of Connecticut, 
Hale of New Hampshire, Hamlin of Maine, Harlan of Iowa, King of New 
York, Pugh of Ohio, Seward of New York, Simmons of Rhode Island, Stu- 
art of Michigan, Sumner of Massachusetts, Trumbull of Illinois, Wade of 
Ohio, Wilson of Massachusetts — 25. 

The whole number of senators was 62. Of these, 58 voted 
as above. Mr. Cameron, of Pennsylvania, had paired off with 
Mr. Davis, of Mississippi. Mr. Bates, of Delaware, and Mr. 
Reid, of North Carolina, were both detained from the Senate 
by illness. 

Mr. Douglas had been for some ten days or more confined 



328 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

to his house and to his bed by severe illness. It was under- 
stood that, as the vote would take place on Monday or Tues- 
day, he would address the Senate upon the bill. 

On Monday, March 22d, the Senate met at ten o'clock. 
From an early hour the galleries and every part of the hall 
had been crowded. During the forenoon, the antechamber, as 
well as the passages leading to the Senate or north wing of the 
Capitol, had been thronged. The Kansas Bill having been taken 
up, Mr. Stuart, of Michigan, addressed the Senate for three 
hours ; Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, followed ; and Mr. Broderick, 
of California, continued the debate until the hour for taking a 
recess. Mr. Green then stated that Mr. Douglas would speak 
at night, and that no vote would be taken till next day. The 
Senate then adjourned till V P.M. During the recess of three 
hours the crowd held possession of the galleries ; many of the 
ladies present had been there during the entire day. No one 
who had a seat or even standing-room moved, because to do 
so was to lose the opportunity so earnestly sought to hear Mr. 
Douglas. The Senate reassembled at 1 o'clock. At that time 
it was impossible to approach the entrances to the Senate. 
When Mr. Douglas entered the chamber he was greeted with 
a burst of applause from the crowded auditory. 

Mr. Gwin at once rose and moved that ladies be admitted to 
the floor of the Senate, and, no objection being made, the mo- 
tion was agreed to. Ladies then entered the hall, and occu- 
pied such positions, standing or sitting, as they^could attain. 
The members of the House of Representatives were present in 
large numbers, and filled the aisles. Thus the chamber was 
filled to its utmost capacity. The pressure in the galleries and 
upon the stairs was very great, leading several times to great 
confusion. 

Mr. Douglas then addressed the Senate as follows : 

Mr. President, — I know not that my strength is sufficient to enable me to 
present to-night the views which I should like to submit upon the question 
now under consideration. My sickness for the last two weeks has deprived 
me of the pleasure of listening to the debates, and of an opportunity of read- 
ing the speeches that have been made ; hence I shall not be able to perform 
the duty which might naturally have been expected of me, of replying to any 
criticisms that may have been presented upon my course, or upon my speech- 
es, or upon my report. I must content myself with presenting my views 
upon the questions that are naturally brought up by the bill under consider- 
ation. I trust, however, that I may be pardoned for referring briefly, in the 
first instance, to my course upon the Slavery question during the period that 
I have had a seat in the two houses of Congress. 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 329 

When I entered Congress in 1843, I found upon the statute-book the evi- 
dence of a policy to adjust the Slavery question and avoid sectional agitation 
by a geographical line drawn across the continent, separating free territory 
from slave territory. That policy had its origin at the beginning of this gov- 
ernment, and had prevailed up to that time. In 1787, while the convention 
was in session forming the Constitution of the United States, the Congress 
of the Confederation adopted the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery in 
all the territory northwest of the Ohio Eiver. The first Congress that as- 
sembled under the Constitution extended all the provisions of that ordinance, 
with the exception of the clause prohibiting slavery, to the territory south of 
that river, thus making the Ohio River the dividing line between free terri- 
tory and slave territory, free labor and slave labor. 

Subsequently, after the acquisition of Louisiana, when Missouri, a portion 
of that territory, applied for admission into the Union as a state, the same 
policy was carried out by adopting the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude, 
from the western border of Missouri, as far westward as our territory then 
extended, as the barrier between free territory upon the one side and slave 
territory upon the other. 

Thus the question stood when I first entered the Congress of the United 
States. I examined the question when the proposition was made for the an- 
nexation of Texas in 1845, and, though I was unable to vindicate the policy 
of a geographical line upon sound political principles, still, finding that it 
had been in existence from the beginning of the government, had been ac- 
quiesced in up to that time by the North and by the South, and that it had 
its origin in patriotic motives, Iwas anxious to abide by and perpetuate that 
policy rather than open the slavery agitation, and create sectional strife and 
heart-burning by attempting to restore the government to those great prin- 
ciples which seemed to me to be more consistent with the right of self-gov- 
ernment, upon which our institutions rest. For this reason I cordially ac- 
quiescjd, in 1815, in the insertion into the resolutions for the annexation of 
Texas of a clause extending the Missouri Compromise line through the Re- 
publij of Texas so far westward as the new acquisition might reach. I not 
only acquiesced in and supported the measure then, but I did it with the 
avowed purpose of continuing that line to the Pacific Ocean so soon as we 
should acquire the territory. Accordingly, in 1848, when we had acquired 
New Mexico, Utah, and California from the Republic of Mexico, and the 
question arose in this body in regard to the kind of government which should 
be established therein, the Senate, on my motion, adopted a proposition to 
extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, with the same 
understanding with which it was originally adopted. The Journal of the 
Senate contains the following entry of that proposition : 

" On motion of Mr. Douglas to amend the bill, section fourteen, line one, 
by inserting after the word ' enacted :' ' That the line of 36° 30' of north lat- 
itude, known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined by the eighth sec- 
tion of an act entitled "An Act to authorize the People of the Missouri Ter- 
ritory to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the Admission 
of said State into the Union on an equality with the original States, and to 
prohibit Slavery in certain Territories," approved March 6, 1820, be, and the 
same is hereby declared to extend to the Pacific Ocean, and the said eighth 
section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and 
declared to be in full force and binding for the future organization of the 
Territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same under- 
standing with which it was originally adopted.' 

"It Avas determined in the affirmative — yeas 32, nays 21. 
' ' On motion of Mr. Baldwin, the yeas and nays being desired by one fifth 
of the senators present, 



330 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

"Those who voted in the affirmative arc Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, 
Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butte*, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mis- 
sissippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, 
Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, 
King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Stur- 
geon, Turney, and Underwood. 

"Those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, 
Bradbury, Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, 
Dodge, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, 
and Webster. 

"So the proposed amendment was agreed to." 

Thus it will be seen that the proposition offered by me to extend the Mis- 
souri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean in the same sense and with the 
same understanding with which it was originally adopted, was agreed to by 
the Senate by a majority of twelve. When the bill was sent to the House of 
Representatives, that provision was stricken out, I think, by thirty-nine ma- 
jority. By that vote the policy of separating free territory from slave terri- 
tory by a geographical line was abandoned by the Congress of the United 
States. It is not my purpose on this occasion to inquire whether the policy 
was right or wrong ; whether its abandonment at that time was wise or un- 
wise ; that is a question long since consigned to history $ and I leave it to that 
tribunal to determine. I only refer to it now for the purpose of showing the 
view which I then took of the question. It will be seen, by reference to the 
votes in the Senate and House of Representatives, that Southern men in a 
body voted for the extension of the Missouri Compromise line, and a very 
large majority of the Northern men. voted against it. The argument then 
made against the policy of a geographical line was one which upon principle 
it was difficult to answer. It was urged that if slavery was wrong north of 
the line, it could not be right south of the line ; that if it was unwise, impol- 
itic, and injurious on the one side, it could not be wise, politic, and judicious 
upon the other ; that if the people should be left to decide the question for 
themselves on the one side, they should be entitled to the same privilege on 
the other. I thought these arguments were difficult to answer upon princi- 
ple. The only answer urged was, that the policy had its origin in patriotic 
motives, in fraternal feeling, in that brotherly affection which ought to ani- 
mate all the citizens of a common country; and that,' for the sake of peace, 
and harmony, and concord, we ought to adhere to and preserve that policy. 
Under these considerations, I not only voted for it, but moved it, and la- 
mented as much as any man in the country its failure, because that failure 
precipitated us into a sectional strife and agitation, the like of whieh had 
never before been witnessed in the United States, and which alarmed the 
wisest, the purest, and the best patriots in the land for the safety of the re- 
public. 

You all recollect the agitation which raged through this land from 1848 
to 1850, and which was only quieted by the compromise measures of the lat- 
ter year. You all remember how the venerable sage and patriot of Ashland 
was called forth from his retirement for the sole purpose of being able to 
contribute, by his wisdom, by his patriotism, by his experience, by the w r eight 
of his authority, something to calm the troubled waters and restore peace 
and harmony to a distracted country. That contest waged fiercely, almost 
savagely, threatening the peace and existence of the Union, until at last, by 
the wise counsels of a Clay, a Webster, and a Cass, and the other leading 
spirits of the country, a new r plan of conciliation and settlement was agreed 
upon, which again restored peace to the Union. The policy of a geographi- 
cal line separating free territory from slave territory was abandoned by its 
friends only because they found themselves without the power to adhere to 



THE LECOMPTON CONTEOVEESY. 331 

it, and carry it into effect in good faith. If that policy had been continued, 
if the Missouri line had been extended to the Pacific Ocean, there would have 
been an end to the slavery agitation forever — for on one side, as far west as 
the Continent extended, slavery would have been prohibited, while on the 
other, by legal implication, it would have, been taken for granted that the in- 
stitution of slavery would have existed and continued, and emigration would 
have sought the one side of the line or the other, as it preferred the one or 
the other class of domestic and social institutions. I confess, sir, that it was 
my opinion then, and is my opinion now, that the extension of that line would 
have been favorable to the South, so far as any sectional advantage would 
have been obtained, if it be an advantage to any section to extend its peculiar 
institutions. Southern men seemed so to consider it, for they voted almost 
unanimously in favor of that policy prohibiting slavery on one side, contented 
with a silent implication in its favor on the other. Northern representatives 
and senators seemed to take the same view of the subject, for a large majority 
of them voted against this geographical policy, and in lieu of it insisted upon 
a law prohibiting slavery every where within the Territories of the United 
States, north as well as south of the line ; and not only in the Territories, 
but in the dock-yards, the navy-yards, and all other public places over which 
the Congress of the United States had exclusive jurisdiction. 

Such, sir, was the state of public opinion, as evidenced by the acts of rep- 
resentatives and senators' on the question of a geographical line by the ex- 
tension of the Missouri Compromise, as it is called, from 1848 to 1850, which 
caused it to be abandoned, and the compromise measures of 1850 to be sub- 
stituted in its place. Those measures are familiar to the Senate and to the 
country. They are predicated upon the abandonment of a geographical line, 
and upon the great principle of self-government in the Territories, and the 
sovereignty of the states over the question of slavery, as well as over all 
other matters of local and domestic concern. Inasmuch as the time-honored 
and venerated policy of a geographical line had been abandoned, the great 
leaders of the Senate, and the great commoners in the other House of Con- 
gress, saw no other remedy but to return to the true principles of the Consti- 
tution — to those great principles of self-government and popular sovereignty 
upon which all free institutions rest, and to leave the people of the Territo- 
ries and of the states free to decide the Slavery question, as well as all other 
questions, for themselves. 

Mr. President, I am one of those who concurred cheerfully and heartily in 
this new line of policy marked out by the compromise measures of 1850. 
Having been compelled to abandon the former policy of a geographical line, 
for want of ability to carry it out, I joined with the great patriots to whom I 
have alluded to calm and quiet the country by the adoption of a policy more 
congenial to my views of free institutions, not only for the purpose of healing 
and harmonizing the strife and controversy which then existed, but for the 
farther purpose of providing a rule of action in all time to come which would 
avoid sectional strife and sectional controversy in the future. It was one of 
the great merits of the compromise measures of 1850 — indeed, it was their 
chief merit— that they furnished a principle, a rule of action which should 
apply every where — north and south of 36° 30' — not only to the territory 
which we then had, but to all that we might afterward acquire, and thus, if 
that principle was adhered to, prevent any strife, any controversy, any sec- 
tional agitation in the future. The object was to localize, not to nationalize, 
the controversy in regard to slavery ; to make it a question for each state and 
each Territory to decide for itself, without any other state, or any other Ter- 
ritory, or the federal government, or any outside power interfering, directly 
or indirectly, to influence or control the result. 

My course upon those measures created at first great excitement, and I 



332 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

may say great indignation, at my own home, so that it became necessary for 
me* to go before the people and vindicate my action. I made a speech at 
Chicago upon my return home, in which I stated the principles of the com- 
promise measures of 1850 as I have now stated them here, and vindicated 
them to the best of my ability. It is enough to say that, upon sober reflec- 
tion, the people of Illinois approved the coarse which I then pursued ; and 
when the Legislature came together, they passed, with great unanimity, res- 
olutions endorsing emphatically the principle of those measures. 

In 1 854, when it became necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas 
and Nebraska, the question arose, What principle was to apply to those Ter- 
ritories ? It was true they both lay north of the line of 36° 30' ; but it was 
also true that, four years before, the policy of a geographical line had been 
abandoned and repudiated by the Congress of the United States, and in lieu 
of it the plan of leaving each Territory free to decide the question for itself had 
been adopted. I felt it to be my duty, as a senator from the State of Illinois, 
and I will say as a member of the Democratic party, to adhere in good faith 
to the principles of the compromise measures of 1850, and to apply them to 
Kansas and Nebraska, as well as to the other Territories. To show that I 
was bound to pursue this course, it is only necessary to refer to the public in- 
cidents of those times. In the presidential election of 1852, the great polit- 
ical parties of that day each nominated its candidate for the presidency upon 
a platform which endorsed the compromise measures of 1850, and both 
pledged themselves to carry them out in good faith in all future times in the 
organization of all new Territories. The Whig party adopted that platform 
at Baltimore, and placed General Scott, their candidate, upon it. The Dem- 
ocratic party adopted a platform identical in principles, so far as this ques- 
tion was concerned, and elected General Pierce President of the United 
States upon it. Thus the Whig party and the Democratic party each stood 
pledged to apply this principle in the organization of all new Territories. 
Not only was I as a Democrat — as a senator who voted for their adoption — 
bound to apply their principle to this case, but, as a senator from Illinois, I 
was under an imperative obligation, if I desired to obey the will and carry 
out the wishes of my constituents, to apply the same principle. To show the 
views of my Legislature upon that subject, I will read one resolution, which 
Avas passed at the session of 1851 : 

'■'■Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of 
the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; 
that this great privilege, the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, se- 
cured to us by the blood of our ancestors, ought to be extended to future 
generations ; and that no limitation ought to be applied to this power in the 
organization of any Territory of the United States, of either a Territorial 
government or a state Constitution : Provided, The government so establish- 
ed shall be republican, and in conformity with the Constitution." 

That resolution was adopted by a vote of sixty-one in the affirmative and 
only four in the negative. I undertake to say that resolution spoke the sen- 
timents of the people of Illinois ; and I, as their senator, was only carrying 
out their sentiments and wishes by applying this principle to the Territories 
of Kansas and Nebraska. This principle was applied in that bill in the pre- 
cise language of the compromise measures of 1850, except the addition of a 
clause removing from the statute-book the eighth section of the Missouri Act, 
as being inconsistent with that principle, and declaring that it was the true 
intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or 
state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thei-eof perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, sub- 
ject only to the Constitution of the United States. 

Now, sir, the question arises whether the Lecompton Constitution, which 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 333 

has been presented here for our acceptance, is in accordance with this prin- 
ciple embodied in the compromise measures, and clearly defined in the or- 
ganic act of Kansas. Have the people of Kansas been left perfectly free to 
form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only 
to the Constitution ? Is the Lecompton Constitution the act and deed of the 
people of Kansas ? Does it embody their will ? If not, you have no consti- 
tutional right to impose it upon them. If it does embody their will, if it is 
their act and deed, you have, then, a right to waive any irregularities that 
may have occurred, and receive the state into the Union. This is the main 
point, in my estimation, upon which the vote of the Senate and the House 
of Kepresentatives ought to depend in the decision of the Kansas question. 
Now, is there a man within the hearing of my voice who believes that the 
Lecompton Constitution does embody the will of a majority of the bona fide 
inhabitants of Kansas ? Where is the evidence that it does embodv that 
will? 

We are told that it was made by a convention assembled at Lecompton in 
September last, and has been submitted to the people for ratification or re- 
jection. How submitted? In a manner that allowed every man to vote for 
it, but precluded the possibility of any man voting against it. We are told 
that there is a majority of about five thousand five hundred votes recorded in 
its favor under these circumstances. I refrain from going into the evidence 
which has been taken before the commission recently held in Kansas to show 
what proportion of these votes Avere fraudulent ; but, supposing them all to 
have been legal, bona fide residents, what does that fact prove, when the peo- 
ple on that occasion were allowed only to vote for, and could not vote against, 
the Constitution ? On the other hand, we have a vote of the people in pur- 
suance of law, on the 4th of January last, when this Constitution was sub- 
mitted by the Legislature to the people for acceptance or rejection, showing 
a majority of more than ten thousand against it. If you grant that both 
these elections were valid, if you grant that the votes were legal and fair, yet 
the majority is about two to one against this Constitution. Here is evidence 
to my mind conclusive that this Lecompton Constitution is not the embodi- 
ment of the popular will of Kansas. How is this evidence to be rebutted ? 
By the assumption that the election on the 21st of December, where the 
voters were allowed to vote for it, but not against it, was a legal election ; 
and that the election of the 4th of January, where the people were allowed 
to vote for or against the Constitution as they chose, was not a legal and 
A^alid election. 

Sir, where do you find your evidence of the legality of the election of the 
21st of December? Under what law was that election held? Under no 
law except the decree of the Lecompton Convention. Did that convention 
possess legislative power ? Did it possess any authority to prescribe an elec- 
tion law? That convention possessed only such power as it derived from 
the Territorial Legislature in the act authorizing the assembling of the con- 
vention ; and I submit that the same authority, the same power, existed in 
the Territorial Legislature to order an election on the 4th of January as 
existed in the convention to order one on the 21st of December. The Legis- 
lature had the same power over the whole subject on the 17th of December, 
when it- passed a law for the submission of the Constitution to the people, 
that it had on the 19th of February, when it enacted the statute for the as- 
sembling of the convention. 

The convention assembled under the authority of the Territorial Legisla- 
ture alone, and hence was bound to conduct all its proceedings in conformity 
with, and in subordination to, the authority of the Legislature. The mo- 
ment the convention attempted to put its Constitution into operation against 
the authority of the Territorial Legislature, it committed an act of rebellion 



334 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

against the government of the United States. But we are told by the Presi- 
dent that at the time the Territorial Legislature passed the law submitting 
the whole Constitution to the people, the Territory had been prepared for 
admission into the Union as a state. How prepared ? By what authority 
prepared ? Not by the authority of any act of Congress — by no other au- 
thority than that of the Territorial Legislature ; and clearly a convention 
assembled under that authority could do no act to subvert the Territorial 
Legislature which brought the convention into existence. 

But gentlemen assume that the organic act of the Territory was an ena- 
bling act ; that it delegated to the Legislature all the power that Congress had 
to authorize the assembling of a convention. Although I dissent from this 
doctrine, I am willing, for the sake of the argument, to assume it to be cor- 
rect; and if it be correct, to Avhat conclusion does it lead us? It only sub- 
stitutes the Territorial Legislature for the authority of Congress, and gives 
validity to the convention ; and therefore the Legislature would have just 
the same right that Congress otherwise would have had, and no more, and 
no less. Suppose, now, that Congress had passed an enabling act, and a 
convention had been called, and a Constitution framed under it ; but three 
days before that Constitution was to take effect, Congress should pass anoth- 
er act repealing the convention law, and submitting the Constitution to the 
vote of the people : would it be denied that the act of Congress submitting 
the Constitution would be a valid act ? If Congress would have authority 
thus to interpose, and submit the Constitution to the vote of the people, it 
clearly follows that if the Legislature stood in the place of Congress, and was 
vested with the power which Congress had on the subject, it had the same 
right to interpose, and submit this Constitution to the people for ratification 
or rejection. 

Therefore, sir, if you judge this Constitution by the technical rules of law, 
it was voted down by an overwhelming majority of the people of Kansas, and 
it became null and void ; and you are called upon now to give vitality to a 
void, rejected, repudiated Constitution. If, however, you set aside the tech- 
nicalities of law, and approach it in the spirit of statesmanship, in the spirit 
of justice and of fairness, with an eye single to ascertain what is the wish and 
the will of that people, you are forced to the conclusion that the Lecompton 
Constitution does not embody that will. 

Sir, we have heard the argument over and over again that the Lecompton 
Convention were justified in withholding this Constitution from submission to 
the people, for the reason that it would have been voted down if it had been 
submitted to the people for ratification or rejection. We are told that there 
was a large majority of free-state men in the Territory, who would have voted 
down the Constitution if they had got a chance, and that is the excuse for 
not allowing the people to vote upon it. That is an admission that this Con- 
stitution is not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it does not 
embody their will ; and yet you are called upon to give it force and vitality ; 
to make it the fundamental law of Kansas with a knowledge that it is not 
the will of the people, and misrepresents their wishes. I ask you, sir, where 
is your right, under our principles of government, to force a Constitution 
upon an unwilling people ? You may resort to all the evidence that you can 
obtain, from every source that you please, and you are driven to the same 
conclusion. (The confusion created by the large number of persons in the 
galleries endeavoring to find places where they could see and hear, and oth- 
ers pressing in, was so great that the honorable senator could hardly make 
himself heard.) 

Mr. Stuart. I am aware of the very great difficulty of preserving order; 
but still I think that, by a suggestion from the chair, gentlemen in the gal- 
leries and about the lobbies would do it. They can do it if they will. The 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 335 

honorable senator from Illinois speaks with difficulty, at any rate, and I hope 
there will be sufficient order preserved that he may be heard. 

The Vice-President. The chair has observed a good deal of disorder about 
the central door of the main gallery. It is quite obvious that there are as 
many persons there as can stand now, and therefore it would be well for 
gentlemen not to press in. They are respectfully requested to preserve order 
and decorum. 

Mr. Douglas. If further evidence was necessary to show that the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution is not the will of the people of Kansas, you find it in the ac- 
tion of the Legislature of that Territory. On the first Monday in October an 
election took place for members of the Territorial Legislature. It was a se- 
vere struggle between the two great parties in the Territory. On a fair test, 
and at the fairest election, as is recorded on all hands, ever held in the Ter- 
ritory, a Legislature was elected. That Legislature came together and re- 
monstrated, by an overwhelming majority, against this Constitution, as not 
being the act and deed of that people, and not embodying their will. Ask 
ths late governor of the Territory, and he will tell you that it is a mockery 
to call this the act and deed of the people. Ask the secretary of the Terri- 
tory, ex-Governor Stanton, and he will tell you the same thing. I will haz- 
ard the prediction, that if you ask Governor Denver to-day, he will tell you, 
if he answers at all, that it is a mockery, nay, a crime, to attempt to enforce 
this Constitution as an embodiment of the will of that people. Ask, then, 
your official agents in the Territory ; ask the Legislature elected by the peo- 
ple at the last election ; consult the poll-books on a fair election held in pur- 
suance of law ; consult private citizens from there ; consult whatever sources 
of information you please, and you get the same answer — that this Constitu- 
tion does not embody the public will, is not the act and deed of the people, 
does not represent their wishes ; and hence I deny your right, your author- 
ity, to make it their organic law. If the Lecompton Constitution ever be- 
comes the organic law of the State of Kansas, it will be the act of Congress 
that makes it so, and not the act or will of the people of Kansas. 

But we are. told that it is a matter of but small moment whether the Con- 
stitution embodies the public will or not, because it can be modified and 
changed by the people of Kansas at any time as soon as they are admitted 
into the Union. Sir, it matters not whether it can be changed or can not be 
changed, so far as the principle involved is concerned. It matters not wheth- 
er this Constitution is to be the permanent fundamental law of Kansas, or is 
to last only a day, or a month, or a year ; because, if it is not their act and 
deed, you have no right to force it upon them for a single day. If you have 
the power to force it upon this people for one day, you may do it for a year, 
for ten years, or permanently. The principle involved is the same. It is as 
much a violation of fundamental principle, a violation of popular sovereignty, 
a violation of the Constitution of the United States, to force a state Constitu- 
tion on an unwilling people for a day, as it is for a year or for a longer time. 
When you set the example of violating the fundamental principles of free 
government, even for a short period, you have made a precedent that will 
enable unscrupulous men in future times, under high partisan excitement, 
to subvert all the other great principles upon which our institutions rest. 

But, sir, is it true that this Constitution may be changed immediately by 
the people of Kansas ? The President of the United States tells us that the 
people can make and unmake Constitutions at pleasure ; - that the people 
have no right to tie their own hands and pi-ohibit a change of the Constitu- 
tion until 1864, or any other period ; that the right of change always exists, 
and that the change may be made by the people at any time in their own 
way, at pleasure, by the consent of the Legislature. I do not agree that the 
people can not tie their own hands. I hold that a Constitution is a social 



336 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

compact between all the people of the state that adopts it ; between each 
man in the state, and every other man ; binding upon them all ; and they 
have a right to say it shall only be changed at a particular time and in a par- 
ticular manner, and then only after such and such periods of deliberation. 
Not only have they a right to do this, but it is wise that the fundamental law 
should have some stability, some permanency, and not be liable to fluctuation 
and change by every ebullition of passion. 

This Constitution provides that after the year 1864 it may be changed by 
the Legislature by a two thirds vote of each House, submitting to the people 
the question whether they will hold a convention for the purpose of amend- 
ing the Constitution. I hold that, when a Constitution provides one time of 
change, by every rule of interpretation it excludes all other times ; and when 
it prescribes one mode of change, it excludes all other modes. I hold that 
it is the fair intendment and interpretation of this Constitution that it is not 
to be changed until after the year 1864, and then only in the manner pre- 
scribed in the instrument. If it were true that this Constitution was the act 
and deed of the people of Kansas — if it were true that it embodied their will 
— I hold that such a provision against change for a sufficient length of time 
to enable the people to test its practical workings would be a wise provision, 
and not liable to objection. That people are not capable of self-government 
who can not make a Constitution under which they are willing to live for a 
period of six years without change. I do not object that this Constitution 
can not be changed until after 1864, provided you show me that it be the act 
and deed of the people, and embodies their will now. If it be not their act 
and deed, you have no right to fix it upon them for a day — not for an hour 
— not for an instant ; for it is a violation of the great principle of free gov- 
ernment to force it upon them. 

The President of the United States tells us that he sees no objection to in- 
serting a clause in the act of admission declaratory of the right of the people 
of Kansas, with the consent of the first Legislature, to change this Constitu- 
tion, notwithstanding the provision which it contains that it shall not be 
changed until after the year 1864. Where does Congress get power to in- 
tervene and change a provision in the Constitution of a state ? If this Con- 
stitution declares, as I insist it does, that it shall not be changed until after 
1864, what right has Congress to intervene, to alter, or annul that provision 
prohibiting alteration ? If you can annul one provision, you may another, 
and another, and another, until you have destroyed the entire instrument. 
I deny your right to annul ; I deny your right to change, or even to construe 
the meaning of a single clause of this Constitution. If it be the act and deed 
of the people of Kansas, and becomes their fundamental law, it is sacred ; 
you have no right to touch it, no right to construe it, no right to determine 
its meaning ; it is theirs, not yours. You must take it as it is, or reject it as 
a whole ; but put not your sacrilegious hands upon the instrument if it be 
their act and deed. Whenever this government undertakes to construe state 
Constitutions and to recognize the right of the people of a state to act in a dif- 
ferent manner from that provided in their Constitution ; whenever it under- 
takes to give a meaning to a clause of a state Constitution, which that state 
has not given ; whenever it undertakes to do that, and its right is acknowl- 
edged, farewell to state rights, farewell to state sovereignty ; your states be- 
come mere provinces, dependencies, with no more independence and no 
more rights than the counties of the different states. This doctrine, that 
Congress may intervene, and annul, construe, or change a clause in a state 
Constitution,, subverts the fundamental principles upon which our complex 
system of government rests. 

* Upon this point, the Committee- on Territories, in the majority report, find 
themselves constrained to dissent from the doctrine of the President. They 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 337 

see no necessity, and, if I understand the report, no legal authority on the 
part of Congress to intervene and construe this or any other provision of the 
Constitution ; but the distinguished gentleman who makes the report from 
the Committee on Territories has, in his own estimation, obviated all objec- 
tion by finding a clause in the Constitution of Kansas which he thinks reme- 
dies the whole evil. It is in the Bill of Rights, and is in these words : 

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments 
are founded, on their authority, and instituted for their benefit ; and, there- 
fore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, re- 
form, or abolish their form of government in such a manner as they may 
think proper." 

The Vice President. The senator from Illinois will pause for a moment. 
The sergeant-at-arms will go up and close the centre door of the ladies' gal- 
lery ; shut it, and keep it shut, so as to admit no more persons there. 

Mr. Douglas. There appears to be some difficulty at the southern door of 
the eastern gallery, and I hope the chair will direct that to be closed. 

The Vice President. The chair has sent an officer to that door to close it, 
and preserve quiet there. The senator from Illinois will proceed. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator from Missouri, who makes the report of the 
majority of the committee, is under the impression that this clause in the Bill 
of Rights overrides and changes the provision in the Lecompton Constitution, 
which declares that there shall be no change until after 1 864, and then only 
by a two thirds vote of the Legislature. How does he make that override 
the prohibition ? By taking the clause in the Bill of Rights which is intend- 
ed only to assert abstract rights that may be exercised by the people when 
driven to the last resort, to witj to revolution. That is an abstract principle, 
intended to assert the right in the people of Kansas to change their form of 
government under the same law, the same authority that our ancestors re- 
sisted British power, and overthrew the British authority upon this conti- 
nent. It was under that principle, that our fathers burnt up the stamps, and 
sent the stamp agents out of the country. It was under that principle that 
our fathers resorted to. arms to maintain the right to change their form of 
government from a monarchy to a republic — change by revolution, because 
they arrived at the point where resistance was a less evil than submission. 
That the people have a right to appeal to the God of arms to overthrow the 
power that oppresses them, and change their form of government whenever 
their oppressions are intolerable, and resistance is a less evil than submission, 
is a great truth that no Republican, no Democrat, no citizen of a free coun- 
try should ever question. But, sir, that clause was never intended to fur- 
nish the lawful mode by which this Constitution could be changed, for the 
reason that the same instrument points out a different mode- than the one 
therein asserted ; and when a specific mode is prescribed, and time is to 
elapse before that mode can be resorted to, that excludes the idea that it can 
be done in any other mode, or at a prior time. 

But, sir, this article from the Bill of Rights proves entirely too much. The 
President says you may put into this bill a clause recognizing the right of 
the people of Kansas to change their Constitution by the consent of the first 
Legislature. What does the Bill of Rights say? That it is the inalienable 
and indefeasible right of the people, at all times, to alter, abolish, or reform 
their form of government in such manner as they may think proper, not in 
such manner as the Legislature shall prescribe, nor at such time as the leg- 
islative authority or the existing government may provide, but in such man-? 
ner as the people think proper in town meeting, in convention, through the 
Legislature, in popular assemblages, at the point of the bayonet, in any man- 
ner the people themselves may determine. That is the right and the nature 
of the right authorized by this Bill of Rights. It is the revolutionary reme- 

P 



338 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

dy, not the lawful mode. There are two modes of changing the Constitu- 
tion of a state — one lawful, the other revolutionary. The lawful mode is the 
one prescribed in the instrument. The revolutionary mode is one in viola- 
tion of the instrument. The revolutionary mode may he peaceful or may be 
forcible ; that depends on whether there is resistance. If a people are unan- 
imous in favor of a change, if nobody opposes it, the revolutionary means 
may be a peaceful remedy ; but if, in the progress of the revolution, while 
you are making the change, you meet with resistance, then it becomes civil 
war, treason, rebellion, if you fail, and a successful revolution if you succeed. 
I say, then, the mode pointed out in the Bill of Rights is the revolutionary 
mode, and not the lawful means provided in the instrument ; but if the 
Committee on Territories be right in saying that this is a lawful mode, then 
the recommendation of the President, that Congress should recognize the 
right to do it by the first Legislature, violates this Constitution. Why? 
The President recommends us to recognize their rights through the Legis- 
lature, and in that mode alone. The Bill of Rights says the people shall do 
it in such manner as they please. If the construction given by the Commit- 
tee on Territories be right, you dare not vote for the President's proposition 
to recognize the right of the first Legislature to do it, for you give a con- 
struction to the instrument in violation of its terms. 

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator from Illinois allow me to interrupt him 
a moment ? 

Mr. Douglas. With a great deal of pleasure. 

Mr. Hammond. I understood the senator to say just now that Congress 
had no right to look into the Constitution of a state and place a construction 
upon it. If that be true, I would inquire of the senator from Illinois how is 
Congress to know whether a Constitution is republican or not ? If it be true, 
I would inquire of him, further, why is he here now discussing and placing 
a construction upon the Constitution of Kansas? 

Mr. Douglas. I will take great pleasure in answering the gentleman from 
South Carolina. I have a right to look into this Constitution to see wheth- 
er, in my opinion, it is republican. I have this right to look at it only for 
the purpose of regulating my vote. The judgment on which I base my vote 
is one binding on nobody but myself. I am talking now, not on forming a 
construction by which members of Congress are to govern themselves, but I 
am speaking of your right to place a construction upon this Constitution 
binding upon the people and government of Kansas. Give me the power to 
construe the Constitution of Kansas authoritatively, and then I have the 
power to change it, to alter it, to annul it, to make it mean what I please, 
and not what they mean. 

Mr. Havmiond. I should have thought that the senator would have de- 
nounced the attempt to construe the Constitution, and left the matter thei'e, 
after having asserted that no such power exists ; but when he goes on to con- 
strue it himself, he is inconsistent with his first proposition that there is no 
right to construe it. 

Mr. Douglas. No, sir ; I deny the right of Congress to construe it author- 
itatively for the people of Kansas. I am not denying the right of the sena- 
tor from South Carolina to put his own construction upon it. I am not de- 
nying the right of each senator here to make up his own mind in regard to 
it. It is the duty of each senator here to do that for himself; but that is 
only to satisfy his own judgment and his own conscience in regulating his 
vote upon the question. The point I am arguing is whether this Congress 
has any power, by a rule of construction, to change the Constitution of a 
stat^, and make its construction binding on the authorities and people of 
that state. I repeat, if this Congress can exercise that power, there is an 
end of state rights, an end of state sovereignty ; this government becomes a 



THE LECOMPTON CONTEOVEESY. 339 

consolidated government, an empire, a central power, with provinces and 
dependencies, and ceases to be a confederation of sovereign and independent 
states. I am arguing against the propriety of Congress acceding to the rec- 
ommendation of the President to strike that fatal blow at the sovereignty of 
the states of this Union. 

But, sir, my friend from Ohio, who can not accede quite to this doctrine 
of the President any more than the Committee on Territories can, proposes 
to remedy this matter in a different way. He has offered an amendment, 
which I ask the clerk to read. 

The clerk read the following amendment, intended to be proposed by Mr. 
Pugh, to the amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. Green to the bill 
(S., N, 161) "for the admission of the State of Kansas into the Union: At 
the end thereof add the following section : 

"Sec. — . And be it further enacted, That the admission of the States of 
Minnesota and Kansas into the Union, by this act, shall never be so con- 
strued as to deny, limit, or otherwise impair the right of the people of the said 
states, with the assent of their Legislatures, severally, at all times, to alter, 
reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may 
think proper, so that the same be still republican and in accordance with the 
Constitution of the United States." 

Mr. Douglas. I am at a loss to know what object my friend from Ohio 
expects to accomplish by this proviso, that nothing in the act of admission 
shall be construed to deny, limit, or otherwise impair the right of the people 
to change their Constitution. Who ever dreamed that there was any thing 
in the act of admission which could be so construed ? It is not the act of 
admission to which we are alluding ; it is the provision in this Constitution 
which says it shall not be changed until after 1864. . 

Nobody pretends that you can put any thing in the act of admission which 
would limit this right. What I am denying is your right to put any thing 
in the act of admission either to limit, or extend, or construe the Constitu- 
tion. Nobody pretends that this act of admission affects this point at all. 
The objection, if it be an objection, is in the Constitution itself, not in the 
act of admission. 

Then what legal effect would the amendment of the senator from Ohio 
have if it should be adopted ? I presume no one pretends that it would have 
any legal effect. Is there a senator here who pretends that the adoption of 
the amendment of the senator from Ohio would confer any power or author- 
ity on the people of Kansas to change their Constitution which they would 
not have without it ? I am informed the senator from Ohio said, in his 
speech in explanation of it, that it did not confer any right which the people 
would not otherwise have. Then why adopt it ? I can conceive of but one 
motive, and that is to lead the people to infer that they have secured a right 
by that proviso which they really have not got — to lead them to suppose that 
they have gained an advantage which in reality they do not possess. Is that 
the object ? Is it the object to obviate an objection, and yet, in fact, to leave 
the objection in full force ? Why, I ask, is it proposed to put that amend- 
ment in the bill if it has no legitimate effect — if it does not give the people 
any right, any privilege, which they would not possess without it ? Perhaps 
I may be asked, on the contrary, what is the objection to putting it in ? It 
may be said it is only the expression of the individual opinion of the members 
of Congress. I will tell you my objection to putting this clause in the act 
of admission. I object to inserting any clause in the act of admission that 
expresses any opinion, one way or the other, in respect to the propriety of 
any provision in the Constitution. If you may pronounce judgment on the 
propriety of one clause, although it has no legal effect to change it, you may 
on the propriety of another clause. Suppose, for instance, the senator from 



340 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

New York should offer an amendment that nothing contained in this act of 
admission shall be construed to sanction or tolerate the right to hold property 
in man ; or that nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize or 
permit slaveholding in said state ; or should propose to insert an opinion that 
slaveholding was a crime ; would Southern men think there was no objection 
to it because it had no legal effect ? Are you willing that Congress shall set 
the example of inserting, in acts of admission, clauses that pronounce judg- 
ment against the domestic institutions of a state ? Are you willing that a 
Congress composed of a majority of free-state men shall put clauses in an act 
of admission condemning slaveholding ? Or, if we were a minority, would 
we be willing that you should put a clause in an act of admission condemning 
our free institutions ? 

Now, sir, I hold that Congress has no right to pronounce its opinion even 
upon the propriety of any local or domestic institution of any state of this 
Union. Each state is sovereign, with the unlimited and unrestricted power 
and right to manage its local and internal concerns to suit itself, subject only 
to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. I warn gentle- 
men that when, in order to catch a little popular favor, they set the example 
of backing up a vote in favor of this enormous fraud by putting a clause in 
the bill having no legal effect, but expressing opinions upon the propriety 
of this or that clause of a state Constitution, they are setting an example 
that may return upon them in a way that will not be pleasant. I protest 
against Congress interfering either to annul or construe, or express opinions 
upon the propriety of this clause or that clause of the Constitution. I re- 
peat, if the Constitution be the act and deed of the people of Kansas, and if 
its provisions are not in violation of the Constitution of the United States, 
that people had a right to put them there, and you have no right to touch 
them or to pronounce judgment upon them. 

Mr. President, I come back to the question, Ought we to receive Kansas 
into the Union with the Lecompton Constitution ? Is there satisfactory ev- 
idence that it is the act and deed of that people — that it embodies their will ? 
Is the evidence satisfactory that the people of that Territory have been left 
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way ? I think not. I do not acknowledge the propriety, or justice, or force 
of that special pleading which attempts, by technicalities, to fasten a Con- 
stitution upon a people which, it is admitted, they would have voted clown 
if they had had a chance to do so, and which does not embody their will. 
Let me ask gentlemen from the South, if the case had been reversed, would 
they have taken the same view of the subject ? Suppose it were ascertain- 
ed, beyond doubt or cavil, that three fourths of the people of Kansas were 
in favor of a slaveholding state, and a convention had been assembled by 
just such means and under just such circumstances as brought the Lecomp- 
ton Convention together ; and suppose that when it assembled it was ascer- 
tained that three fourths of the convention were Free-soilers, while three 
fourths of the people were in favor of a slaveholding state ; suppose an elec- 
tion took place in the Territory during the sitting of the convention, which 
developed the fact that the convention did not represent the people ; suppose 
that convention of Free-soilers had proceeded to make a Constitution and 
allowed the people to vote for it, but not against it, and thus forced a Free- 
soil Constitution upon a slaveholding people against their will — would you, 
gentlemen from the South, have submitted to the outrage? Would you 
have come up here and demanded that the Free-soil Constitution, adopted 
at an election where all the affirmative votes were received, and all the neg- 
ative votes rejected, for the reason that it would have been voted clown if the 
negative votes had been received, should be accepted? Would you have 
said that it was fair, that it was honest, to force an Abolition Constitution on 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 341 

a slaveholding people against their will ? Would you not have come forward 
and have said to us that you denied that it was the embodiment of the pub- 
lic will, and demanded that it should be sent back to the people to be voted 
upon, so as to ascertain the fact ? Would you not have said to us that you 
were willing to live up to the principle of the Nebraska Bill, to leave the peo- 
ple perfectly free to form such institutions as they please ; and that, if we 
would only send that Constitution back and let the people have a fair vote 
upon it, you would abide the result ? Suppose we, being a Northern major- 
ity, had said to you, "No; we have secured a sectional advantage, and we 
intend to hold it ; and we will force this Constitution upon an unwilling peo- 
ple merely because we have the power to do it;" would you have said that 
was fair ? 

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator allow me to answer him? 

Mr. Douglas. Certainly. 

Mr. Hammond. As the senator looked toward me in asking his question, I 
will undertake, though without authority, to answer for the slaveholding com. 
munity. If, having had the power to establish a slaveholding Constitution, 
we had refrained from exercising it, and those in favor of a free-state Con- 
stitution had established one to that effect, I say that the slaveholders would 
have submitted to it until, through the forms of constitutional law, they could 
have altered it. 

Mr. Douglas. The senator assumes what I did not certainly intend when 
he says that I looked at him. I was propounding the question, however, to 
any senator, and am as willing that the senator from South Carolina should 
reply as any other. He assumes as true, for the purposes of his answer, the 
very fact that is denied — that they had the power. 

Mr. Hammond. Asserted on all hands, sir. 

Mr. Douglas. What? 

Mr. Hammond. Asserted that there was a free-state majority when the 
convention was elected. 

Mr. Brown. The senator from Illinois asserted it to-night. 

Mr. Douglas. Yes ; and I assert now that there was a free-state majority ; 
and I assert, also, that one half the counties of the Territory were disfran- 
chised, and not allowed to vote at the election of delegates. (Applause in 
the galleries.) 

Mr. Hammond. That has been answered over and over again — 

The Vice-President. The senator from South Carolina will pause until or- 
der is restored. 

Mr. Mason. I rise to a question of privilege. If there is again disorder in 
this chamber, I shall insist upon the galleries being cleared. 

Mr. Brown. I hope that order will be enforced. The Senate is not a 
theatre. 

Mr. Toombs. The statement just made by the senator from Illinois is a 
great mistake, and I shall take issue with him when he sits down. I say it 
is not true in any sense, and I will answer it. 

Mr. Mason. Mr. President — 

The Vice-President. The senator from Virginia gives notice that if there 
be a repetition of the demonstrations in the galleries he will move to clear 
them. 

Mr. Mason. If there is again disorder in the galleries, let it arise from 
what source it may, I shall ask the chair to enforce the order of the Senate. 

The Vice-President. Before the debate commenced, the chair expressed the 
hope that these demonstrations would not occur. He did not then think that 
he would have to repeat the expression of that hope. This floor is covered 
by persons not members of the Senate, admitted by the consent of the body 
unanimously, and certainly something is due to the courtesy of the Senate. 



342 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

The chair does not believe these demonstrations will be repeated, and there- 
fore takes no further notice of what has occurred. The senator from Illinois 
will proceed. 

Mr. Douglas. The interposition of the denial that about one half of the 
counties were disfranchised, I presume, can have but very little weight on 
the argument. It has been proven over and over again. In my estimation 
the proof is conclusive as to the fifteen counties, and satisfactory, I think, as 
to nineteen, being half the counties of the Territory, that there were hot such 
a census and registration as authorized a vote for delegates. It has been 
attempted to be proved, however, that there was not a great many votes in 
those counties. I believe the president of the convention estimates that there 
were not more than fifteen hundred or two thousand in those counties. 
Suppose that was all. There were only a little over two thousand votes 
polled at the election of delegates in the other nineteen counties which elect- 
ed all the delegates. If the disfranchised counties contained fifteen hundred 
voters, is it not conclusive that, with the addition of five or six hundred per- 
sons in the other counties, they could have changed the result? Having 
been disfranchised in one half the counties, the friends of those who were dis- 
franchised may not have voted in the other counties, because they had no 
hope of overcoming the majority in the other half. I did not intend to go 
into the argument on that point again, and I should not have alluded to it 
now but for the fact that the senator from South Carolina had to assume as 
true, what I understood not to be true, in order to predicate his answer upon 
it, that he, as a Southern man, would vote to admit the state if the case had 
been reversed, and a free-state Constitution was being forced upon an unwill- 
ing people, with the knowledge that it did not reflect the sentiments of that 
people. 

Mr. Hammond. Allow me to say that if the slaveholders, under these cir- 
cumstances, had never had a majority at all, they would, nevertheless, have 
submitted until they could alter the Constitution, if they could possibly do it. 

Mr. Douglas. I can only say, then, that they are a very submissive peo- 
ple. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Hammond. Not at all. 

Mr. Douglas. I have never seen the day when I would be willing to sub- 
mit to the action of a minority forcing a Constitution on an unwilling peo- 
ple against their will because it had got an advantage. It violates the fun- 
damental principle of government ; it violates the foundations on which all 
free government rests; it is a proposition in violation of the Democratic 
creed; in violation of the Republican creed; in violation of the American 
creed ; in violation of the creed of every party which professes to be govern- 
ed by the principles of free institutions and fair elections. 

Mr. Hammond. Will the senator allow me to say one word more ? If the 
slaveholders, under the circumstances that he stated, were a minority, they 
would have submitted. If they were a majority, as I assume, they would, 
have submitted until, under the forms of constitutional law, they could have 
properly asserted their power. 

Mr. Douglas. I understood the senator to say that ; I must say to him that 
I would rather not repeat questions on the same point over and over again. 
I am very feeble to-night, and shall probably not have strength enough to go 
through with my remarks. I only desire to say on that point that I regard 
the principle involved here as vital and fundamental, as lying at the founda- 
tion of all free government, and the violation of it as a death-blow to state 
rights and state sovereignty. But, sir, I pass on. If you admit Kansas with 
the Lecompton Constitution, you also admit her with the state government 
which has been brought into existence under it. Is the evidence satisfacto- 
ry that that state government has been fairly and honestly elected ? Is the 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 343 

evidence satisfactoiy that the elections were fairly and honestly held, and 
fairly and honestly returned ? You have all seen the evidence showing the 
fraudulent voting ; the forged returns, from precinct after precinct, changing 
the result not only upon the legislative ticket, but also upon the ticket for 
governor and state officers. The false returns in regard to Delaware Cross- 
ing, changing the complexion of the Legislature, are admitted. The evi- 
dence is equally conclusive as to the Shawnee Precinct, the Oxford Precinct, 
the Kickapoo Precinct, and many others, making a difference of some three 
thousand votes in the general aggregate, and changing the whole result of 
the election. Yet, sir, we are called upon to admit Kansas with the state 
government thus brought into existence not only by fraudulent voting, but 
forged returns, sustained by perjury. The Senate well recollects the efforts 
that I made before the subject was referred to the committee, and since, to 
ascertain to whom the certificates of election were awarded, that we might 
know whether they were given to the men honestly elected, or to the men 
whose elections depended upon forgery and perjury. Can any one tell me 
now to whom those certificates have been issued, if they have been issued at 
all ? Can any man tell me whether we are installing, by receiving this state 
government, officers whose sole title depends upon forgery, or those whose ti- 
tle depends upon popular votes ? We have been calling for that information 
for about three months, but we have called in vain. One day the rumor 
would be that Mr. Calhoun would declare the free-state ticket elected, and 
next day that he would declare the pro-slavery ticket elected. So it has al- 
ternated, like the chills and fever, day after day, until within the last three 
days, when the action of Congress became a little dubious, when it was doubt- 
ful whether Northern men were willing to vote for a state government de- 
pending upon forgery and perjury, and then we find that the president of the 
Lecompton Convention addresses a letter to the editor of the Star, a news- 
paper in this city, telling what he thinks is the result of the election. He 
says it is true that he has received no answer to his letters of inquiry to Gov- 
ernor Denver ; he has no official information on the subject ; but, from ru- 
mors and unofficial information, he is now satisfied that the Delaware Cross- 
ing return was a fraud ; that it will be set aside ; and that, accordingly, the 
result will be that certificates will be issued to the free-state men. I do not 
mean to deny that Mr. Calhoun may think such will be the result ; but, while 
he may think so, I would rather know how the fact is. His thoughts are not 
important, but the fact is vital in establishing the honesty or dishonesty of the 
state government which we are about to recognize. It so happens that Mr. 
Calhoun has no more power, no more authority over that question now than 
the senator from Missouri, or any other member of this body. The cele- 
brated Lecompton schedule provides that, 

"In case of removal, absence, or disability of the president of this con- 
vention to discharge the duties herein imposed on him, the president pro tem- 
pore of this convention shall perform said duties ; and in case of absence, re- 
fusal, or disability of the president pro tempore, a committee consisting of 
seven, or a majority of them, shall discharge the duties required of the pres- 
ident of this convention." 

As Mr. Calhoun is absent from the Territory, and, by reason of that ab- 
sence, is deprived of all authority over the subject-matter, and as the president 
pro tempore has succeeded to his powers, is it satisfactory for the deposed 
president to address a letter to the editor of the Star announcing his private 
opinion as to who has been elected? I should like to know who the president 
pro tempore is, and where he is ; and if he is in Kansas, whether he has arrived 
at the same conclusion which the ex-president Calhoun has announced. I 
should like to know whether that president pro tempore has already issued 
his certificate to the pro-slavery men in Kansas, while Mr. Calhoun expresses 



344 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the opinion in the Star that the certificates will be issued to the free-state 
men ? If that president pro tempore has become a fugitive from justice, and 
escaped from the Territory, I should like then to know who are the commit- 
tee of seven that were to take his place ; and whether they, or a majority of 
them, have arrived at the same conclusion to which Mr. Calhoun has come? 
Inasmuch as this opinion is published to the world just before the vote is to 
be taken here, and is expected to catch the votes of some green members of 
one body or the other, I should like to know whether certificates have been 
issued ? and, if so, by whom, and to whom ? where the president pro tempore 
is ? where the committee of seven may be found ? and then we might know 
who constitute the Legislature, and who constitute the state government 
which we are to bring into being. We are not only to admit Kansas with a 
Constitution, but with a state government; with a governor, a Legislature, a 
judiciary ; with executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerial officers. In- 
asmuch as we are told by the President that the first Legislature may take 
steps to call a convention to change the Constitution, I should like to know 
of whom that Legislature is composed ? Inasmuch as the governor would 
have the power to veto an act of the Legislature calling a convention, I 
should like to know who is governor, so that I may judge whether he would 
veto such an act? Can not our good friends get the president pro tempore of 
the convention to write a letter to the Star ? Can they not procure a letter 
from the committee of seven? Can they not clear up this mystery, and re- 
lieve our suspicious minds of any thing unfair or foul in the arrangement of 
this matter ? Let us know how the fact is. 

This publication of itself is calculated to create more apprehension than 
there was before. As long as Mr. Calhoun took the ground that he would 
never declare the result until Lecompton was admitted, and that, if it was 
not admitted, he would never make the decision, there seemed to be some 
reason in his course ; but when, after taking that ground for months, it be- 
came understood that Lecompton was dead, or was lingering and languish- 
ing, and likely to die, and when a few more votes were necessary, and a pre- 
text was necessary to be given in order to secure them, we find this letter 
published by the deposed ex-president, giving his opinion when he had no 
power over the subject ; and when it appears by the Constitution itself that 
another man or another body of men has the decision in their hands, it is 
calculated to arouse our suspicions as to what the result will be after Le- 
compton is admitted. 

Mr. President, in the course of the debate on this bill, before I was com- 
pelled to absent myself from the Senate on account of sickness, and I presume 
the same has been the case during my absence, much was said on the Slavery 
question in connection with the admission of Kansas. Many gentlemen have 
labored to produce the impression that the whole opposition to the admission 
arises out of the fact that the Lecompton Constitution makes Kansas a slave 
state. I am sure that no gentleman here will do me the injustice to assert or 
suppose that my opposition is predicated on that consideration, in view of the 
fact that my speech against the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton 
Constitution was made on the 9th of December, two weeks before the vote 
was taken upon the slavery clause in Kansas, and when the general impres- 
sion was that the pro-slavery clause would be excluded. I predicated my 
opposition then, as I do now, upon the ground that it was a violation of the 
fundamental principles of government, a violation of popular sovereignty, a 
violation of the Democratic platform, a violation of all party platforms, and 
a fatal blow to the independence of the new states. I told you then that you 
had no more right to force a free-state Constitution upon a people against 
their will than you had to force a slave-state Constitution. Will gentlemen 
say that, on the other side, slavery has no influence in producing that united, 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 345 

almost unanimous support which we find from gentlemen living in one sec- 
tion of the Union in favor of the Lecompton Constitution ? If slavery had 
nothing to do with it, would there have been so much hesitation about Mr. 
Calhoun's declaring the result of the election prior to the vote in Congress ? 
I submit, then, whether we ought not to discard the Slavery question alto- 
gether, and approach the real question before us fairly, calmly, dispassion- 
ately, and decide whether, but for the slavery clause, this Lecompton Con- 
stitution could receive a single vote in either house of Congress. Were it not 
for the slavery clause, would there be any objection to sending it back to the 
people for a vote ? Were it not for the slavery clause, would there be any 
objection to letting Kansas wait until she had ninety thousand people, instead 
of coming into the Union with not over forty-five or fifty thousand ? Were 
it not for the Slavery question, would Kansas have occupied any considerable 
portion of our thoughts ? would it have divided and distracted political parties 
so as to create bitter and acrimonious feelings ? I say now to our Southern 
friends that I will act, on this question on the right of the people to decide for 
themselves, irrespective of the fact whether they decide for or against slavery, 
provided it be submitted to a fair vote at a fair election, and with honest 
returns. 

In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I 
seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles which they 
publish in regard to myself ; but the course of the Washington Union has 
been so extraordinary for the last two or three months, that I think it well 
enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of the Democratic 
party every other day, at least, for two or three months, and keeps reading 
me out (laughter) ; and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to read me 
out, using such terms as "traitor," "renegade," " deserter, " and other kind 
and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my 
Democracy against the Washington Union, or any other newspaper. I am 
willing to allow my history and action for the last twenty years to speak for 
themselves as to my political principles, and my fidelity to political obliga- 
tions. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. When its editor 
was nominated for public printer I declined to vote for him, and stated that 
at some time I might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to give 
that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and constant attacks, have 
been repeated almost daily on me. Will my friend from Michigan read the 
article to which I allude ? 

Mr. Stuart read the following editorial article from the Washington Union 
of November 17, 1857 : 

" Free-soilism. — The primary object of all government, in its original in- 
stitution, is the protection of person and property. It is for this alone that 
men surrender a portion of their natural rights. 

"In order that this object may be fully accomplished, it is necessary that 
this protection should be equally extended to all classes of free citizens with- 
out exception. This, at least, is a fundamental principle of the Constitution 
of the United States, which is the original compact on which all our institu- 
tions are based. 

"Slaves were recognized as property in the British colonies of North Amer- 
ica by the government of Great Britain, by the colonial laws, and by the Con- 
stitution of the United States. Under these sanctions vested rights have ac- 
crued to the amount of some sixteen hundred million dollars. It is therefore 
the duty of Congress and the state Legislatures to protect that property. 

"The Constitution declares that ! the citizens of each state shall be en- 
titled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.' 
Every citizen of one state coming into another state has therefore a right to 
the protection of his person, and that property which is recognized as such bv 

P2 



346 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the Constitution of the United States, any law of a state to the contrary not- 
withstanding. So far from any state having a right to deprive him of this prop- 
erty, it is its bounden duty to protect him in its possession. 

" If these views are correct — and we believe it would be difficult to inval- 
idate them — it follows that all state laws, whether organic or otherwise, which 
prohibit a citizen of one state from settling in another, and bringing his slave 
property with him, and most especially declaring it forfeited, are direct viola- 
tions of the original intention of a government which, as before stated, is the 
protection of person and property, and of the Constitution of the United States, 
which recognizes property in slaves, and declares that ' the citizens of each 
state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several states, ' among the most essential of which is the protection of person 
and property. 

"What is recognized as property by the Constitution of the United States, 
by a provision which applies equally to all the states, has an inalienable right 
to be protected in all the states. " * * * * 

" The protection of property being, next to that of person, the most import- 
ant object of all good government, and property in slaves being recognized by 
the Constitution of the United States, as well as originally by all the old thir- 
teen states, we have never doubted that the emancipation of slaves in those 
states where it previously existed, by an arbitrary act of the Legislature, was 
a gross violation of the rights of property." * * * * 

" The emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States teas then, as previously 
stated, a gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was not a vol- 
untary relinquishment on the part of the owners. It was an act of coercive 
legislation." * * * * 

"This measure of emancipation was the parent or the offspring of a doc- 
trine which may be so extended as to place the property of every man in the 
community at the mercy of rabid fanaticism or political expediency. It is 
only to substitute scruples of conscience in place of established constitutional 
principle, and all laws and all constitutions become a dead letter. The rights 
of persons and property become subservient, not to laws and Constitutions, 
but to fanatical dogmas, and thus the end and object of ail good government 
is completely frustrated. There is no longer any rule of law nor any consti- 
tutional guide ; and the people are left to the discretion, or rather the mad- 
ness, of a school of instructors who can neither comprehend their own dogmas 
nor make them comprehensible to others." * * * * 

" Where is all this to end ? and what security have the free citizens of the 
United States that their dearest rights may not, one after the other, be offer- 
ed up at the shrine of the demon of fanaticism, the most dangerous of all the 
enemies of freedom ? If the Constitution is no longer to be our guide and 
protector, where shall we find barriers to defend us against a system of legis- 
lation restrained by no laws and no Constitutions, which creates crimes at 
pleasure, punishes them at will, and sacrifices the rights of persons and prop- 
erty to a dogma or a scruple of conscience ? All this is but the old laws of 
Puritanism now fermenting and souring in the exhausted beer-barrel of Mas- 
sachusetts. The descendants of this race of ecclesiastical tyrants, or rather 
ecclesiastical slaves, have spread over the western part of the State of New 
York, and throughout all the new states, where they have, to some extent, dis- 
seminated their manners, habits, and principles, most especially their blind 
subserviency to old idols, and their abject subjection to their priests. There 
is no doubt that they aspire to give tone and character to the whole confed- 
eracy, and believe that their dream will be realized ? We are pretty well con- 
vinced, however, that the people of the United States will never become a na- 
tion of fanatical Puritans. " 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositions ad- 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVEKSY. 347 

vanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially and apparently authori- 
tatively, and every man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abo- 
litionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary 
object of all government at its original institution is the protection of person 
and property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that 
the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities 
of citizens in the several states ; and that, therefore, thirdly, all state laws, 
whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one state from 
settling in another with their slave property, and especially declaring it for- 
feited, are direct violations of the original intention of the government and 
Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, that the emancipation of the 
slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights of property, 
inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. 

Eemember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of No- 
vember, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesion of the 
Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : 

"Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. The 
problem is solved. The dread point of danger is passed. All serious trouble 
to Kansas affairs is over and gone," 

and a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look into the 
Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in it which 
was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it ? 

"Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher than 
any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to such 
slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner 
of any property whatever." 

Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amended 
aftsr 1864 by a two thirds vote, 

"But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the own- 
ership of slaves." 

It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are 
identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Washington Union of 
the day previous to its endorsement of this Constitution, and every man is 
branded as a Free-soiler and Abolitionist who does not subscribe to them. 
The proposition is advanced that the emancipation acts of New York, of New 
England, of Pennsylvania, and of New Jersey, were unconstitutional, were 
outrages upon the right of property, were violations of the Constitution of the 
United States. The proposition is advanced that a Southern man has a right 
to move from South Carolina, with his negroes, into Illinois, to settle there 
and hold them there as slaves, any thing in the Constitution and laws of Il- 
linois to the contrary notwithstanding. The proposition is, that a citizen of 
Virginia has rights in a free state which a citizen of a free state can not him- 
self have. We prohibit ourselves from holding slaves within our own limits, 
and yet, according to this doctrine, a citizen of Kentucky can move into our 
state, bring in one hundred slaves with him, and hold them as such in defi- 
ance of the Constitution and laws of our own state. If that proposition is 
true, the creed of the Democratic party is false. The principle of the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill is, that " each state and each Territory shall be left perfectly 
free to form and regulate its domestic institutions in its own way, subject only 
to the Constitution of the United States." I claim that Illinois has the sov- 
ereign right to prohibit slavery, a right as undeniable as that the sovereignty 
of Virginia may authorize its existence. We have the same right to prohibit 
it that you have to recognize and protect it. Each state is sovereign within 
its own sphere of powers, sovereign in respect to its own domestic and local 
institutions and internal concerns. So long as you regulate your local insti- 
tutions to suit yourselves, we are content ; but when you claim the right to 



348 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

override our laws and our Constitution* and deny our right to form our insti- 
tutions to suit ourselves, I protest against it. The same doctrine is asserted 
in this Lecompton Constitution. There it is stated that the right of property 
in slaves is "before and higher than any constitutional sanction." 

Mr. President, I recognize the right of the slaveholding states to regulate 
their local institutions, to claim the services of their slaves under their own 
state laws, and I am prepared to perform each and every one of my obliga- 
tions under the Constitution of the United States in respect to them ; but I 
do not admit, and I do not think they are safe in asserting, that their right 
of property in slaves is higher than and above constitutional sanction, is inde- 
pendent of constitutional obligations. When you rely upon the Constitution 
and upon your own laws, you are safe. When you go beyond and above con- 
stitutional obligations, I know not where your safety is. If this doctrine be 
true, that slavery is higher than the Constitution, and above the Constitution, 
it necessarily follows that a state can not abolish it, can not prohibit it, and 
the doctrine of the Washington Union, that the emancipation laws were out- 
rages on the rights of property and violations of the Constitution, becomes 
the law. 

When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed 
by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, 
and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that no state has a 
right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a fatal blow 
being struck at the sovereignty of the states of this Union, a death-blow to 
state rights, subversive of the Democratic platform and of the principles upon 
which the Democratic party have ever stood, and upon which I trust they ever 
will stand. Because of these extraordinary doctrines, I declined to vote for 
the editor of the Washington Union for public printer, and for that refusal, 
as I suppose, I have been read out of the party by the editor of the Union at 
least every other day from that time to this. Sir, I submit the question : 
Who has deserted the Democratic party and the Democratic platform— he who 
stands by the sovereign rights of the state to abolish and prohibit slavery as 
it pleases, or he who attempts to strike down the sovereignty of the states, 
and combine all power in one central government, and establish an empire in- 
stead of a confederacy ? 

The principles upon which the presidential campaign of 1856 was fought 
are well known to the country. At least in Illinois I think I am authorized 
to state that they were with clearness and precision, so far as the Slavery 
question is concerned. The Democracy of Illinois are prepared to stand on 
the platform upon which the battle of 1856 was fought. It was, 

First. The migration or importation of negroes into the country having 
been prohibited since 1808, never again to be renewed, each state will take 
care of its own colored population. 

Second. That while negroes are not citizens of the United States, and 
hence not entitled to political equality with whites, they should enjoy all the 
rights, privileges, and immunities which they are capable of exercising, con- 
sistent with the safety and welfare of the community where they live. 

Third. That each state and Territory must judge and determine for itself 
of the nature and extent of its rights and privileges. 

Fourth. That while each free state should and will maintain and protect 
all the rights of the slaveholding states, they will, each for itself, maintain 
and defend its sovereign right within its own limits to form and regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution 
of the United States, 

Fifth. That in the language of Mr. Buchanan's letter of acceptance of the 
presidential nomination, the Nebraska-Kansas Act does no more than give 
the form of law to this elementary principle of self-government when it de- 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 349 

clares "that the people of a Territory, like those of a state, shall decide for 
themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 

These were the general propositions on which we maintained the canvass 
on the Slavery question — the right of each state to decide for itself; that a 
negro should "have such rights as he was capable of enjoying, and could en- 
joy, consistently with the safety and welfare of society ; and that each state 
should decide for itself the nature, and extent, and description of those rights 
and privileges. Hence, if you choose in North Carolina to have slaves, it is 
your business, and not ours. If we choose in Illinois to prohibit slavery, it is 
our right, and you must not interfere with it. If New York chooses to give 
privileges to the negro which we withhold, it is her right to extend them, but 
she must not attempt to force vis to do the same thing. Let each state take 
care of its own affairs, mind its own business, and let its neighbors alone, 
then there will be peace in the country. Whenever you attempt to enforce 
uniformity, and, judging that a peculiar institution is good for you, and there- 
fore good for every body else, try to enforce it on every body, you will find that 
there will be resistance to the demand. Our government was not formed on 
the idea that there was to be uniformity of local laws or local institutions. 
It was founded upon the supposition that there must be diversity and variety 
in the institutions and laws. Our fathers foresaw that the local institutions 
which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be ill adapted to 
the rice plantations of South Carolina. They foresaw that the institutions 
which would be well adapted to the mountains and valleys of Pennsylvania 
would not suit the plantation interests of Virginia. They foresaw that the 
great diversity of climate, of production, of interests, would require a corre- 
sponding diversity of local laws and local institutions. For this reason they 
provided for thirteen separate states, each with a separate Legislature, and 
each state sovereign within its own sphere, with the right to make all its local 
laws and local institutions to suit itself, on the supposition that they would 
be as different and as diversified as the number of states themselves. Then 
the general government was made, with a Congress having limited and speci- 
fied powers, extending only to those subjects which were national and not 
local, which were federal and not state. 

These were the principles on which our institutions were established. 
These are the principles on which the Democratic party has ever fought its 
battles. This attempt now to establish the doctrine that a free state has no 
power to prohibit slavery, that our emancipation acts were unconstitutional 
and void, that they were outrages on the rights of property, that slavery is 
national and not local, that it goes every where under the Constitution of the 
United States, and yet is higher than the Constitution, above the Constitu- 
tion, beyond the reach of sovereign power, existing by virtue of that higher 
law proclaimed by the senator from New York, will not be tolerated. When 
the doctrine of a higher law, a law above the Constitution, a law overriding 
the Constitution, and imposing obligations upon public men in defiance of 
the Constitution, was first proclaimed in the Senate, it was deemed moral 
treason in this body ; but now I am read out of the party three times a week 
by the Washington Union for disputing this higher law, which is embodied 
in the Lecompton Constitution, that slavery, the right to slave property, does 
not depend upon human law nor constitutional sanction, but is above, and be- 
yond, and before all constitutional sanctions and obligations ! I feel bound, 
as a senator from a sovereign state, to repudiate and rebuke this doctrine. I 
am bound as a Democrat, bound as an American citizen, bound as a senator 
claiming to represent a sovereign state, to enter my protest, and the protest 
of my constituency, against such a doctrine. Whenever such a doctrine 
shall be ingrafted on the policy of this country, you will have revolutionized 
the government, annihilated the sovereignty of the states, established a con- 



350 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

solidated despotism with uniformity of local institutions, and that uniform- 
ity being slavery, existing by Divine right, and a higher law beyond the 
reach of the Constitution and of human authority. 

Mr. President, if my protest against this interpolation into the policy of 
this country or the creed of the Democratic party is to bring me under the 
ban, I am ready to meet the issue. I am told that this Lecompton Consti- 
tution is a party test, a party measure ; that no man is a Democrat who does 
not sanction it, who does not vote to bring Kansas into the Union with the 
government established under that Constitution. Sir, who made it a party 
test ? Who made it a party measure ? Certainly the party has not assem- 
bled in convention to ordain any such thing to be a party measure. I know 
of but one state convention that has endorsed it. It has not been declared 
to be a party measure by state conventions, or by a national convention, or 
by a senatorial caucus, or by a caucus of the Democratic members of the 
House of Representatives. How, then, came it to be a party measure ? The 
Democratic party laid down its creed at its last national convention. That 
creed is unalterable for four years, according to the rules and practices of the 
party. Who has interpolated this Lecompton Constitution into the party 
platform ? 

Oh ! but we are told it is an administration measure. Because it is an 
administration measure, does it therefore follow that it is a party measure ? 
Is it the right of an administration to declare what are party measures and 
what are not ? That has been attempted heretofore, and it has failed. When 
John Tyler prescribed a creed to the Whig party, his right to do so was not 
respected. When a certain doctrine in regard to the neutrality laws was 
proclaimed to be a party measure, my friends around me here considered it 
a "grave error," and it was not respected. When the Army Bill was pro- 
claimed an administration measure, the authority to make it so was put at 
defiance, and the Senate rejected it by a vote of four to one, and the House 
of Representatives voted it down by an overwhelming majority. Is the 
Pacific Railroad Bill a party measure ? I should like to see whether the 
guillotine is to be applied to every recreant Democrat who does not come up 
to that test. Is the Bankrupt Law a party measure ? We shall see, when 
the vote is taken, how many renegades there will be then. Was the Loan 
Bill an administration measure or a party measure ? Is the guillotine to be 
applied to every one who does not yield implicit obedience to the behests of 
an administration in power ? There is infinitely more plausibility in declar- 
ing each of the measures to which I have just alluded to be an administration 
measure, than in declaring the Lecompton Constitution to be such. By what 
right does the administration take cognizance of the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion ? 

The Constitution of the United States says that "new states may be ad- 
mitted into the Union by the Congress" — not by the President, not by the 
cabinet, not by the administration. The Lecompton Constitution itself says, 
' ' This Constitution shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States 
at its next session ;" not to the President, not to the cabinet, not to the ad- 
ministration. The convention in Kansas did not send it to the administra- 
tion, did not authorize it to be sent to the President, but directed it to be 
sent to Congress ; and the President of the United States only got hold of it 
through the commission of the surveyor general, who was also president of 
the Leeompton Convention. The Constitution as made was ordered to be 
sent directly to Congress; Congress having power to admit states, and the 
President having nothing to do with it. The moment you pass a law ad- 
mitting a state, it executes itself. It is not a law to be executed by the 
President or by the administration. It is the last measure on earth that 
could be rightfully made an administration measure. It is not usual for the 



THE LECOMPTON CONTEOVEESY. 351 

Constitution of a new state to come to Congress through the hand of the Pres- 
ident. True, the Minnesota Constitution was sent to the President because 
the Convention of Minnesota directed it to be so sent, and the President sub- 
mitted it to us without any recommendation. Because senators and repre- 
sentatives do not yield their judgments and their consciences, and bow in ab- 
ject obedience to the requirements of an administration in regard to a meas- 
ure on which the administration are not required to act at all, a system of 
proscription, of persecution is to be adopted against every man who maintains 
his self-respect, his own judgment, and his own conscience. 

I do not recognize the right of the President or his cabinet, no matter 
what my respect may be for them, to tell me my duty in the Senate Cham- 
ber. The President has his duties to perform under the Constitution, and 
he is responsible to his constituency. A senator has his duties to perform 
here under the Constitution and according to his oath, and he is responsible 
to the sovereign state which he represents as his constituency. A member 
of the House of Representatives has his duties under the Constitution and 
his oath, and he is responsible to the people that elected him. The Presi- 
dent has no more right to prescribe tests to senators than senators have to the 
President ; the President has no more right to prescribe tests to the repre- 
sentatives than the representatives have to the President. Suppose we here 
should attempt to prescribe a test of faith to the President of the United 
States, would he not rebuke our impertinence and impudence as subversive 
of the fundamental principle of the Constitution ? Would he not tell us 
that the Constitution, and his oath, and his conscience were his guide ; that 
we must perform our duties, and he would perform his, and let each be re- 
sponsible to his own constituency ? 

Sir, whenever the time comes that the President of the United States can 
change the allegiance of the senators from the states to himself, what be- 
comes of the sovereignty of the states ? When the time comes that a sena- 
tor is to account to the executive and not to his state, whom does he repre- 
sent ? If the will of my state is one way and the will of the President is the 
other, am I to be told that I must obey the executive and betray my state, 
or else be branded as a traitor to the party, and hunted down by all the 
newspapers that share the patronage of the government ? and every man 
who holds a petty office in any part of my state to have the question put to 
him, " Are you Douglas's enemy ?" if not, " your head comes off?" Why? 
" Because he is a recreant senator ; because he chooses to follow his judg- 
ment and his conscience, and represent his state instead of obeying my exec- 
utive behest." I should like to know what is the use of Congresses ; what 
is the use of Senates and Houses of Representatives, when their highest duty 
is to obey the executive in disregard of the wishes, rights, and honor of their 
constituents ? What despotism on earth would be equal to this, if you estab- 
lish the doctrine that the executive has a right to command the votes, the 
consciences, the judgment of the senators and of the representatives, instead 
of their constituents ? In old England, whose oppressions we thought intol- 
erable, an administration is hurled from power in an hour when voted down 
by the representatives of the people upon a government measure. If the 
rule of old England applied here, this cabinet would have gone out of office 
when the Army Bill was voted down, the other day, in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. There, in that monarchical country, where they have a queen by 
divine right, and lords by the grace of God, and where Republicanism is 
supposed to have but a slight foothold, the representatives of the people can 
check the throne, restrain the government, change the ministry, and give a 
new direction to the policy of the government, without being accountable to 
the king or the queen. There the representatives of the people are respon- 
sible to their constituents. Across the Channel, under Louis Napoleon, it 



352 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

may be otherwise ; yet I doubt whetHer it would be so boldly proclaimed 
there that a man is a traitor for daring to vote according to his sense of 
duty, according to the will of his state, according to the interests of his con- 
stituents. 

Suppose the executive should tell the senator from California [Mr. Gwin] 
to vote against his Pacific Kailroad Bill ; would he obey ? If not, he will be 
deemed a rebel. Suppose the executive should tell the senator from Virginia 
[Mr. Mason] to vote for the Pacific Railroad Bill, or the senator from Geor- 
gia [Mr. Toombs] to vote for the Army Bill, or the senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. Brown] to sustain him on the Neutrality Laws, we should have more 
rebels and more traitors. But it is said a dispensation is granted from the 
fountain of all power for rebellion on all subjects but one. The President 
says, in effect, " Do as you please on all questions but one ;" that one is Le- 
compton. On what principle is it that we must not judge for ourselves on 
this measure, and may on every thing else ? I suppose it is on the old adage 
that a man needs no friends when he knows he is right, and he only wants 
his friends to stand by him when he is wrong. The President says that he 
regrets this Constitution was not submitted to the people, although he knows 
that if it had been submitted it would have been rejected. Hence the Presi- 
dent regrets that it was not rejected. Would he regret that it was not sub- 
mitted and rejected if he did not think it was wrong ? And yet he demands 
our assistance m forcing it on an unwilling people, and threatens vengeance 
on all who refuse obedience. He recommends the Army Bill ; he thinks it 
necessary to carry on the Mormon war ; it is necessary to cany out a meas- 
ure of the administration, and hence it is an administration measure ; but he 
does not quarrel with any body for voting against it. He thinks every one 
of the other recommendations to which I have alluded is right, and, there- 
fore, there is no harm in going against them. The only harm is in going 
against that which the President acknowledges to be wrong ; and yet the 
system of proscription, to subdue men to abject obedience to executive will, 
is to be pursued. 

Is it seriously intended to brand every Democrat in the United States as a 
traitor who is opposed to the Lecompton Constitution ? If so, do your friends 
in Pennsylvania desire any traitors to vote with them next fall ? We are 
traitors if we vote against Lecompton, our constituents are traitors if they do 
not think Lecompton is right, and yet you expect those whom you call trai- 
tors to vote with and sustain you. Are you to read out of the party every 
man who thinks it wrong to force a Constitution on a people against their 
will ? If so, what will be the size of the administration party in New York ? 
what will it be in Pennsylvania ? how many will it number in Ohio, or in 
Indiana, or in Illinois, or in any other Northern state ? Surely you do not 
expect the support of those whom you brand as renegades ? Would it not be 
well to allow all freemen freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom 
of action ? Would it not be well to allow each senator and representative to 
vote according to his judgment, and perform his duty according to his own 
sense of his obligation to himself, and to his state, and to his God ? 

For my own part, Mr. President, come what may, I intend to vote, speak, 
and act according to my own sense of duty so long as I hold a seat in this 
chamber. I have no defense of my Democracy. I have no professions to 
make of my fidelity. I have no vindication to make of my course. Let it 
speak for itself. The insinuation that I am acting with the Republicans or 
Americans has no terror, and will not drive me from my duty or propriety. 
It is an argument for which I have no respect. When I saw the senator 
from Virginia acting with the Republicans on the Neutrality Laws, in sup- 
port of the President, I did not feel it to be my duty to taunt him with voting 
with those to whom he happened to be opposed in general politics. When 



THE LECOMPTON CONTROVERSY. 363 

I saw the senator from Georgia acting with the Republicans on the Army 
Bill, it did not impair my confidence in his fidelity to principle. When I 
see senators here every day acting with the Republicans on various questions, 
it only shows me that they have independence and self-respect enough to go 
according to their own convictions of duty, without being influenced by the 
course of others. 

I have no professions to make upon any of these points. I intend to per- 
form my duty in accordance with my own convictions. Neither the frowns 
of power nor the influence of patronage will change my action, or drive me 
from my principles. I stand firmly, immovably upon those great principles 
of self-government and state sovereignty upon which the campaign was fought 
and the election won. I stand by the time-honored principles of the Demo- 
cratic party, illustrated by Jefferson and Jackson — those principles of state 
rights, of state sovereignty, of strict construction, on which the great Demo- 
cratic party has ever stood. I will stand by the Constitution of the United 
States, with all its compromises, and perform all my obligations under it. I 
will stand by the American Union as it exists under the Constitution. If, 
standing firmly by my principles, I shall be driven into private life, it is a fate 
that has no terrors for me. I prefer private life, preserving my own self-re- 
spect and manhood, to abject and servile submission to executive will. If 
the alternative be private life or servile obedience to executive will, I am pre- 
pared to retire. Official position has no charms for me when deprived of 
that freedom of thought and action which becomes a gentleman and a senator. 

Mr. President, I owe an apology to the Senate for the desultory manner 
in which I have discussed this question. My health has been so feeble for 
some time past that I have not been able to arrange my thoughts, or the order 
iu wiiich they should be presented. If, in the heat of debate, I have ex- 
pressed a sentiment which would seem to be unkind or disrespectful to any 
senator, I shall regret it. While I intend to maintain, firmly and fearlessly, 
my own views, far be it from me to impugn the motives or question the pro- 
priety of the action of any other senator. I take it for granted that each 
senator will obey the dictates of his own conscience, and will be accountable 
to his constituents for the course which he may think proper to pursue. 

On the 1st of April the bill was taken up in the House. 
The House refused — yeas 95, nays 137 — to reject the bill. 

Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out all 
after the enacting clause, and to insert the same amendment 
proposed by Mr. Crittenden in the Senate. That amendment 
was agreed to — yeas 120, nays 112 — and, as amended, the bill 
was passed by the same vote. 

The next day (April 2) the Senate — yeas 32, nays 23 — re- 
fused to concur in the amendment made by the House. On 
the 8th the House — yeas 119, nays 111 — voted to "adhere" to 
their amendment. On the 13th the Senate "insisted" on its 
disagreement, and asked for a committee of conference. On 
the 14th Mr. Montgomery moved that the House " adhere," and 
Mr. English, of Indiana, moved that the House appoint a com- 
mittee of conference. The vote on the last motion was — yeas 
108, nays 108; the speaker voting in the affirmative, the mo- 
tion was agreed to. The committees were appointed — Messrs. 



354 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Green, Hunter, and Seward on the part of the Senate, and En- 
glish, Stephens, and Howard on the part of the House. This 
committee reported to the House on the 23d what is known 
as the " English Bill," and on the 4th of May the House, by a 
vote of yeas 112, nays 103, concurred in the report of the com- 
mittee of conference, and the Senate, by the vote of all the 
friends of the original bill, did the same. The English Bill be- 
came the law. Its fate before the people of Kansas is well 
known. Thus ended the Lecompton controversy in Congress. 
Happy for the best interests of the country would it have 
been had it been allowed to reach its end without the bitter- 
ness that attended its progress. We will notice no farther at 
this time the assaults upon Mr. Douglas than to refer, as an ex- 
ample of the violence to which excited feelings led some men, to 
an article — leading editorial — in the Washington Union in the 
early part of March, in which it was demonstrated to the writ- 
er's entire satisfaction that no man of small physical stature 
could be a true Democrat at heart ; and that R. J. Walker and 
S. A. Douglas were so constructed physically that it was nat- 
urally impossible for either of them to be a Democrat ! In 
this struggle Mr. Douglas was heartily sustained and support- 
ed to the end by his Democratic colleagues in the House, 
Messrs. Harris, Marshall, Morris, Shaw, and Smith. 



CHAPTER XV. 

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 

Mr. Douglas, during his entire political life, has agreed 
with the Democratic party in resisting any general system of 
internal improvements by the federal government. That hos- 
tility to a general system of internal improvements has been 
expressed over and over again in the platforms of the Demo- 
cratic party, and has had no warmer defender than Mr. Doug- 
las. Upon some points, however, such as the improvements 
of rivers and harbors, he has had opinions somewhat peculiar. 
He has endeavored throughout to discriminate between those 
works which were essential to the protection of commerce and 
the improvement of the navigable waters of the country, and 
those other works asked for by parties having local interests 
to serve, and desirous to promote them at the expense of the 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 355 

federal treasury. Mr. Douglas voted pretty generally for all 
the River and Harbor Appropriation Bills, always protesting 
against such items as were included in them that did not come 
up to his idea of justice or propriety. He was thus often com- 
pelled to vote for a number of small appropriations for what 
he deemed inappropriate works, or vote against others that 
were eminently just and proper. He has uniformly protested 
against that system of legislation which compelled him thus to 
vote against what was right, or vote for others that did not 
meet his approval. 

RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS. 

His effort has been always to break up this irregular, incom- 
plete, and unsatisfactory mode of legislating upon this import- 
ant subject. The appropriations even for the most needful 
works had been so irregular and so often interrupted that the 
works constructed in one season under a partial appropriation 
would frequently be destroyed or rendered valueless before 
the additional sum was appropriated. To remedy these evils, 
he has always urged that Congress would adopt some regular 
system under which these works could be safely, intelligently, 
and profitably carried on. All efforts of that kind, however, 
failed in Congress, where local interests could not be recon- 
ciled to any plan that did not include them. 

In 1852, when the River and Harbor Bill was under consid- 
eration in the Senate, Mr. Douglas, who supported the bill, 
proposed to add to it three sections, having for their object 
the recognition and establishment of such works as the busi- 
ness and interests of the country would demand. His amend- 
ment proposed to grant the consent of Congress to all the 
states, and that the several states might authorize the authori- 
ties of any city or town within their respective limits, which 
might be situated on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts, or on the 
Gulf of Mexico, or on the banks of any bay or arm of the sea 
connecting therewith, or on the shores of Lakes Champlain, 
Ontario, Erie, St. Clair, Huron, Michigan, or Superior, or on 
the banks of any bay or arm of the lake connecting with either 
of said lakes, to levy duties of tonnage, not exceeding ten cents 
per ton, upon boats and vessels of every description entering 
the harbor or waters within the limits of such city or town, 
the funds to be derived from said duties to be expended ex- 



356 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

clusively in constructing, enlarging, deepening, improving, and 
securing safe and commodious harbors and entrances thereto 
at such cities and towns ; the duties thus levied and collected 
not to exceed the amount necessary for the purpose for which 
they were levied. It also granted the consent of. Congress 
that, where several states bordered on a lake, such states might 
enter into an agreement by which a portion of the fund raised 
by tonnage duties in all the cities and towns within their 
limits might be applied to such works as should be deemed 
necessary to improve and render safe and convenient the navi- 
gation of the lakes, and of the rivers and channels connecting 
them together ; these works to be the deepening of the chan- 
nels, or artificial channels to be constructed for that purpose. 
When canals or artificial channels should be thus constructed, 
only such tolls should be levied as would be necessary to keep 
them in repair. His amendment farther granted the consent 
of Congress that, in all cases where any navigable river or 
w^ater might be situated, wholly or in part, within the limits 
of any state, the Legislature of such state might provide for 
the improvement of the navigation of such river within its own 
limits, by the collection of a tonnage duty upon all boats and 
vessels navigating the same. And where a navigable river or 
water might form the boundary of any two or more states, 
such states might, by joint action and agreement, provide for 
the collection of tonnage duties, to be applied exclusively to 
the improvement of the navigation of such river or navigable 
water. 

This was substantially the proposition of Mr. Douglas. It 
was offered, not as a substitute for the 23ending Appropriation 
Bill, but as an addition thereto. It was intended as a consent 
on the part of Congress that each state that felt disposed to 
do so might go on at once and provide the means for putting 
her harbors in good order, her streams in proper condition, and 
her channels in a safe and proper state. It was to throw open 
to the enterprise and public spirit of each community the com- 
merce of the country. Instead of subjecting each city on the 
lake to the most uncertain chances in the lottery of Congres- 
sional appropriations for harbor improvements, it proposed to 
give the assent of Congress, as required by the Constitution, 
to each city to go on and make her own harbor. If two cities 
on the lake, having equal chances for a good lake traffic, should 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 357 

both have their harbors improved by the federal government, 
there would be no cause of complaint. If, however, Congress 
interfered, and gave the money to improve one harbor and re- 
fused it for the other, it was a discrimination in favor of the 
one city and against the other that would be most unjust and 
oppressive. It would be the interference by the federal gov- 
ernment to build up one city and break down the other, out 
of a treasury upon which both had an equality of claim. If 
this policy would have been so unjust where there were only 
two cities, how much more so was it unjust when Congress 
would select one or two harbors on a lake, appropriate money 
for their improvement, and leave a score of others, equally needy, 
wholly unprovided for. Such has been and such must ever be 
the practical operation of the existing system. 

Mr. Douglas proposed to throw open the doors in the man- 
ner provided in the Constitution, and allow each community 
to improve its own harbor ; to let competition and commercial 
enterprise decide the question of commercial consequence. If 
one town made a good harbor, and drew to it a commerce that 
might have gone elsewhere had the harbor not been put in 
proper order, then that was an advantage and a success to 
which such town was entitled, and which its commercial spirit 
fairly merited. If another town failed to improve its harbor, 
and thus lost a trade and commerce that it would have other- 
wise enjoyed, it was a consequence fairly following its omis- 
sion to do its duty. Why should the federal treasury be em- 
ployed to build up the commerce of one point and not the oth- 
er ? Why should the federal government interpose its weight 
and its money for one city in its contest with a rival city? 
The strongest, and, indeed, only plausible argument urged 
against this proposal was that it imposed a tax upon the navi- 
gating interest. The objection is only plausible — it has no 
value in reality. All duties, whether upon imports, port du- 
ties, tolls, freights, insurance, or otherwise, are a tax : not a 
tax upon the importer or shipper, manufacturer or producer, 
but upon the consumer. The consumer eventually pays all the 
tax imposed upon articles of merchandise. If the tax upon a 
barrel of flour from Chicago to New York be fifty cents or two 
dollars, the tax is eventually paid by the consumer. If a tax 
of five cents per ton be levied upon all vessels passing the St. 
Clair River, that tax must eventually be added to the cost of 



358 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the merchandise carried in said vessels. The amount now paid 
for insurance upon vessels and merchandise passing that river 
is a tax imposed upon the articles shipped for the trip. If, in- 
stead of paying that tax in the shape of extra insurance he- 
cause of the wretched condition of that great commercial high- 
way, it was applied to the deepening and improvement of the 
river, it is doubtful, very doubtful, whether in five years the 
public would be subjected to an aggregate tax equal to that to 
which they are now subjected in the shape of extra insurance, 
loss of property, delay in receipt of goods, and all the other 
innumerable delays resulting from the dangerous and often im- 
passable condition of that stream. The money expended now 
by the general government for purposes of river and harbor 
improvement is a tax — a tax mainly collected from the con- 
sumers of foreign imports. The same amount of money col- 
lected from those communities benefited by the work, and ap- 
plied under their own direction, would accomplish ten-fold the 
good now accomplished. If this system were made general, 
people on the lakes would not be taxed for the improvement 
of harbors and rivers on the Atlantic, and the friends of the 
Savannah and Cape Fear River hnprovenients might do all 
that they desire, and have no cause of complaint on account of 
the money lavished upon lake harbors and river improvements 
in the West. 

Mr. Douglas supported his proposition in a very earnest 
speech, in which he argued the constitutional question, and 
the legislative history of river and harbor appropriations. It 
met with decided opposition in debate ; and as it was intended 
at that time merely as an index of what he should propose 
when Congress would eventually, as he supposed, be forced to 
adopt some plan or system upon the subject, he did not press 
it, but allowed it to drop. 

Subsequently, in January, 1854, he addressed a letter to the 
Governor of Illinois upon the subject, which letter embodies in 
a brief form some of the reasons inducing him to favor that 
plan of providing for the improvement of rivers and harbors. 
The following is his 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR MATTESON. 

Washington, January 2d, 1854. 
Sir, — I learn from the public press that you have under consideration the 
proposition to convene the Legislature in special session. In the event such 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 359 

a step shall be demanded by the public voice and necessities, I desire to in- 
vite your attention to a subject of great interest to our people, which may 
require legislative action. I refer to the establishment of some efficient and 
permanent system for river and harbor improvements. Those portions of 
the Union most deeply interested in internal navigation naturally feel that 
their interests have been neglected, if not paralyzed, by an uncertain, vacil- 
lating, and partial policy. Those who reside upon the banks of the Missis- 
sippi, or on the shores of the great Northern Lakes, and whose lives and 
property are frequently exposed to the mercy of the elements for want of 
harbors of refuge and means of safety, have never been able to comprehend 
the force of that distinction between fresh and salt water, which affirms the 
power and duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to provide security to 
navigation so far as the tide ebbs and flows, and denies the existence of the 
right beyond the tidal mark. Our lawyers may have read in English books 
that, by the common law, all waters were deemed navigable so far as the 
tide extended and no farther ; but they should also have learned from the 
same authority that the law was founded upon reason, and where the reason 
failed the rule ceased to exist. In England, where they have neither lake 
nor river, nor other water which is, in fact, navigable, except where the tide 
rolls its briny wave, it was natural that the law should conform to the fact, 
and establish that as a rule which the experience of all men proved to be 
founded in truth and reason. But it may well be questioned whether, if 
the common law had originated on the shores of Lake Michigan — a vast 
inland sea with an average depth of six hundred feet — it would have been 
deemed "not navigable," merely because the tide did not flow, and the wa- 
ter was fresh and well adapted to the uses and necessities of man. We 
therefore feel authorized to repudiate, as unreasonable and unjust, all inju- 
rious discrimination predicated upon salt water and tidal arguments, and to 
insist that if the power of Congress to protect navigation has any existence in 
the Constitution, it reaches every portion of this Union where the water is in 
fact navigable, and only ceases where the fact fails to exist. This power has 
been affirmed in some form, and exercised to a greater or less extent, by 
each successive Congress and every administration since the adoption of the 
federal Constitution. All acts of Congress providing for the erection of light- 
houses, the placing of buoys, the construction of piers, the removal of snags, 
the dredging of channels, the inspection of steam-boat boilers, the carrying 
of life-boats — in short, all enactments for the security of navigation, and the 
safety of life and property within our navigable waters, assert the existence 
of this power and the propriety of its exercise in some form. 

The great and growing interest of navigation is too important to be over- 
looked or disregarded. Mere negative action will not answer. The irregu- 
lar and vacillating policy which has marked our legislation upon this sub- 
ject is ruinous. Whenever appropriations have been proposed for river and 
harbor improvements, and especially on the Northern lakes and the Western 
rivers, there has usually been a death-struggle and a doubtful issue. We 
have generally succeeded with an appropriation once in four or five years ; in 
other words, we have, upon an average, been beaten about four times out of 
five in one house of Congress or the other, or both, or by the presidential 
veto. When we did succeed, a large portion of the appropriation was ex- 
pended in providing dredging-machines and snag-boats, and other necessary 
machinery and implements ; and by the time the work was fairly begun, the 
appropriation was exhausted, and farther operations suspended. Failing to 
procure an additional appropriation at the next session, and perhaps for two, 
three, or four successive sessions, the administration has construed the re- 
fusal of Congress to provide the funds for the prosecution of the works into 
an abandonment of the system, and has accordingly deemed it a duty to sell, 



360 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

at public auction, the dredging-machines and snag-boats, implements and 
materials on hand, for whatever they would bring. Soon the country was 
again startled by the frightful accounts of wrecks and explosions, fires and 
snags upon the rivers, the lakes, and the sea-coast. The responsibility of 
these appalling sacrifices of life and property were charged upon those who 
defeated the appropriations for the prosecution of the works. Sympathy was 
excited, and a concerted plan of agitation and organization formed by the 
interested sections and parties to bring their combined influence to bear upon 
Congress in favor of the re-establishment of the system on an enlarged scale, 
sufficiently comprehensive to embrace the local interests and influences in a 
majority of the Congressional districts of the Union. A legislative omnibus 
was formed, in which all sorts of works were crowded together, good and 
bad, wise and foolish, national and local, all crammed into one bill, and 
forced through Congress by the power of an organized majority, after the 
fearful and exhausting struggle of a night session. The bill would receive 
the votes of a majority in each house, not because any one senator or repre- 
sentative approved all the items contained in it, but for the reason that hu- 
manity, as well as the stern demands of an injured and suffering constituen- 
cy, required that they should make every needful sacrifice of money to dimin- 
ish the terrible loss of human life by the perils of navigation. The result 
was a simple re-enactment of the former scenes. Machinery, implements, 
and materials purchased, the works recommenced — the money exhausted — 
subsequent appropriations withheld — and the operations suspended, without 
completing the improvements, or contributing materially to the safety of nav- 
igation- Indeed, it may well be questioned whether, as a general rule, the 
money has been wisely and economically applied, and in many cases whether 
the expenditure has been productive of any useful results beyond the mere 
distribution of so much money among contractors, laborers, and superintend- 
ents in the favored localities ; and in others, whether it has not been of pos- 
itive detriment to the navigating interest. 

Far be it from my purpose to call in question the integrity, science, of skill 
of those whose professional duty it was to devise the plan and superintend 
the construction of the works. But I do insist that from the nature of their 
profession and their habits of life they could not be expected to possess that 
local knowledge — that knowledge of currents and tides — the effects of storms, 
floods, and ice, always different and ever changing — in each locality of this 
widely- extended country, which is essential in determining upon the proper 
site and plan for an improvement to the navigation. Without depreciating 
the value of science or disregarding its precepts, I have no hesitation in say- 
ing that the opinion of an intelligent captain or pilot, who for a long series 
of years had sailed out of and into a given port in fair weather and foul, and 
who had carefully and daily watched the changes produced in the channel by 
the currents and storms, wrecks and other- obstructions, would inspire me 
with more confidence than that of the most eminent professional gentleman, 
whose knowledge and science in the line of his profession were only equaled 
by his profound ignorance of all those local and practical questions which 
ought to determine the site and plan of the proposed improvement. To me, 
therefore, it is no longer a matter of surprise that errors and blunders occur 
in the mode of constructing the works, and that follies and extravagance ev- 
ery where appear in the expenditure of the money. These evils seem to be 
inherent in the system ; at least, they have thus far proven unavoidable, and 
have become so palpable and notorious that it is worse than folly to close our 
eyes to their existence. 

In addition to these facts, it should be borne in mind that a large and in- 
telligent portion of the American people, comprising, perhaps, a majority of 
the Democratic party, are in the habit of considering these works as consti- 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 361 

tuting a general system of internal improvements by the federal government, 
and therefore in violation of the creed of the Democratic party and of the 
Constitution of the United States. These two-fold objections — the one de- 
nying the constitutional power, and the other the expediency of appropria- 
tions from the national treasury — seem to acquire additional strength and 
force in proportion as the importance of the subject is enhanced, and the ne- 
cessity for more numerous and extensive improvements is created by the ex- 
tension of our territory, the expansion of our settlements, and the develop- 
ment of the resources of the country. As a friend to the navigating interest, 
and especially identified by all the ties of affection, gratitude, and interest 
with that section of the republic which is the most deeply interested in inter- 
nal navigation, I see no hope for any more favorable results from national 
appropriations than we have heretofore realized. If, then, we are to judge 
the system by its results, taking the past as a fair indication of what might 
reasonably be expected in the future, those of us who have straggled hardest 
to render it efficient and useful are compelled to confess that it has proven a 
miserable failure. It is even worse than a failure, because, while it has fail- 
ed to accomplish the desired objects, it has had the effect to prevent local 
and private enterprise from making the improvements under state authority, 
by holding out the expectation that the federal government was about to 
make them. 

By way of illustration, let us suppose that twenty-five years ago, when we 
first began to talk about the construction of railroads in this country, the fed- 
eral government had assumed to itself jurisdiction of all works of that de- 
scription to the exclusion of state authority and individual enterprise. In 
that event, does any one believe we would now have in the United States 
fourteen thousand miles of railroad completed, and fifteen thousand miles in 
addition under contract. Is it to be presumed that, if our own state had 
prostrated itself in humble supplication at the feet of the federal government, 
and with folded arms had waited for appropriations from the national treas- 
ury, instead of exerting state authority, and stimulating and combining indi- 
vidual enterprise, we should now have in Illinois three thousand miles of 
railroad in process of construction ? Let the history of internal improve- 
ments by the federal government be fairly written, and it will furnish con- 
clusive answers to these interrogatories. For more than a quarter of a cen- 
tury the energies of the national government, together with all the spare 
funds in the treasury, were directed to the construction of a Macadamized 
road from Cumberland, in the State of Maryland, to Jefferson City, in the 
State of Missouri, without being able to complete one third of the work. If 
the government were unable to make three hundred miles of turnpike road 
in twenty-five years, hoAV long would it take to construct a railroad to the 
Pacific Ocean, and to make all the harbor and river improvements necessary 
to protect our widely-extended and rapidly-increasing commerce on a sea- 
coast so extensive that in forty years Ave have not been able to complete even 
the survey of one half of it, and on a lake and river navigation more than 
four times as extensive as that sea-coast ? These questions are worthy of 
the serious consideration of those who think that improvements should be 
made for the benefit of the present generation as well as for our remote pos- 
terity ; for I am not aware that the federal government ever completed any 
work of internal improvement commenced under its auspices. 

The operations of* the government have not been sufficiently rapid to keep 
pace with the spirit of the age. The Cumberland Road, when commenced, 
may have been well adapted for the purposes for which it was designed ; but 
after the lapse of a quarter of a century, and before any considerable portion 
of it could be finished, the whole was superseded and rendered useless by the 
introduction of the railroad system. One reason, and perhaps the principal 

o 



362 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

cause, of the slow progress of all government improvements, consists in the 
fact that the appropriation for any one object is usually too small to be of 
material service. It may be sufficient for the commencement of the work, 
but before it can be completed, or even so far advanced as to withstand the 
effects of storms, and floods, and the elements, the appropriation is exhausted, 
and a large portion of the work swept away before funds can be obtained for 
finishing it, or even protecting that which has been done. The ruinous con- 
sequences of these small appropriations are well understood and seriously 
deprecated, but they arise from the necessity of the case, and constitute some 
of the evils inseparable from the policy. All experience proves that the 
numberless items of a river and harbor, or internal improvement bill, can 
not pass, each by itself, and upon its own merits, and that the friends of 
particular works will not allow appropriations to be made for the completion 
of others which are supposed to be of paramount importance unless theirs are 
embraced in the same bill. Each member seems to think the work in his 
own district to be of the sternest necessity and highest importance, and hence 
feels constrained to give his own the preference, or to defeat any bill which 
does not include it. The result is a legislative omnibus, in which all manner 
of objects are crowded together indiscriminately; and as there never is and 
never can be money enough in the treasury to make adequate appropriations 
for the whole, and as the bill can not pass unless each has something, of course 
the amount for each item must be reduced so low as to make it of little or no 
service, and thus render the whole bill almost a total loss. In this manner a 
large portion of our people have been kept in a state of suspense and anxiety 
for more than half a century, with their hopes always excited and their ex- 
pectations never realized. 

I repeat that the policy heretofore pursued has proved worse than a fail- 
ure. If we expect to provide facilities and securities for our navigating in- 
terests, we must adopt a system commensurate with our wants — one which 
will be just and equal in its operations upon lake, river, and ocean, wherever 
the water is navigable, fresh or salt, tide or no tide — a system which will not 
depend for its success upon the dubious and fluctuating issues of political 
campaigns and Congressional combinations — one which will be certain, uni- 
form, and unvarying in its results. I know of no system better calculated 
to accomplish these objects than that Avhich commanded the approbation of 
the founders of the republic, was successively adopted on various occasions 
since that period, and directly referred to in the message of the President. 
It is evidently the system contemplated by the framers of the Constitution 
when they incorporated into that instrument the clause in relation to tonnage 
duties by the states with the assent of Congress. The debates show that this 
provision was inserted for the express purpose of enabling the states to levy 
duties of tonnage to make harbor and other improvements for the benefit of 
navigation. It was objected that the power to regulate commerce having 
already been vested exclusively in Congi-ess, the jurisdiction of the states over 
harbor and river improvements, without the consent or supervision of the 
federal government, might be so exercised as to conflict with the Congres- 
sional regulations in respect to commerce. In order to avoid this objection, 
and at the same time reserve to the states the power of making the necessary 
improvements, consistent with such rules as should be prescribed by Congress 
for the regulation of commerce, the provision was modified and adopted in 
the form in which we now find it in the Constitution, to wit: "no state shall 
lay duties of tonnage except by the consent of Congress." It is evident from the 
debates that the framers of the Constitution looked to tonnage duties as the 
source from which funds were to be derived for improvements in navigation. 
The only diversity of opinion among them arose upon the point whether those 
duties should be levied and the works constructed by the federal government 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 363 

or under state authority. These doubts were solved by the clause quoted, 
providing, in effect, that while the power was reserved to the states, it should 
not be exercised except by the consent of Congress, in order that the local 
legislation for the improvement of navigation might not conflict with the gen- 
eral enactments for the regulation of commerce. Yet the first Congress 
which assembled under the Constitution commenced that series of contra- 
dictory and partial enactments which has continued to the present time, and 
proven the fruitful source of conflict and dissension. 

The first of these acts provided that all expenses for the support of light- 
houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers, should be paid out of the national 
treasury, on the condition that the states in which the same should be situ- 
ated respectively should cede to the United States the said works, " together 
with the lands and tenements thereunto belonging, and together with the ju- 
risdiction of the same." A few months afterward the same Congress passed 
an act consenting that the States of Rhode Island, Maryland, and Georgia 
might levy tonnage duties for the purpose of improving certain harbors and 
rivers within their respective limits. This contradictory legislation upon a 
subject of great national importance, although commenced by the first Con- 
gress, and frequently suspended and renewed at uncertain and irregular pe- 
riods, seems never to have been entirely abandoned. While appropriations 
from the national treasury have been partial and irregular — sometimes grant- 
ed and at others withheld — stimulating hopes only to be succeeded by disap- 
pointments, tonnage duties have also been collected by the consent of Con- 
gress, at various times and for limited periods, in Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Massachu- 
setts, Rhode Island, and perhaps other states. Indeed, there has never been 
a time, since the declaration of Independence, when tonnage duties have 
not been collected under state authority for the improvement of rivers or har- 
bors, or both. The last act giving the consent of Congress to the collection 
of these duties was passed for the benefit of the port of Baltimore in 1850, 
and will not expire until 1861. 

Thus it will bs seen that the proposition to pass a general law giving the 
consent of Congress to the imposition of tonnage duties according to a uni- 
form rule, and upon equal terms in all the states and Territories of the Union, 
does not contemplate the introduction of a new principle into our legislation 
upon this subject. It only proposes to convert a partial and fluctuating pol- 
icy into a permanent and efficient system. 

If this proposition should receive the sanction of Congress, and be carried 
into successful operation by the states, it would withdraw river and harbor 
improvements from the perils of the political arena, and commit them to the 
fostering care of the local authorities, with a steady and unceasing source of 
revenue for their prosecution. The system would be plain, direct, and sim- 
ple in respect to harbor improvements. Each town and city would have 
charge of the improvement of its own harbor, and would be authorized to 
tax its own commerce to the extent necessary for its construction. The 
money could be applied to no other object than the improvement of the har- 
bor, and no higher duties could be levied than were necessary for that pur- 
pose. There would seem to be no danger of the power being abused ; for, 
in addiiion to the restrictions, limitations, and conditions which should be 
embraced in the laws conferring the consent of Congress, self-interest will 
furnish adequate and ample assurances and motives for the faithful execution 
of the trusts. If any town whose harbor needs improvement should fail to 
impose the duties and make the necessary works, such neglect would inevita- 
bly tend to drive the commerce to some rival port, which would use all the 
means in its power to render its harbor safe and commodious, and afford all 
necessary protection and facilities to navigation and trade. If, on the other 



364 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

hand, any place should attempt to impose higher duties than will be abso- 
lutely necessary for the construction of the requisite improvements, this line 
of policy, to the extent of the excess, would have the same deleterious effects 
upon its prosperity. The same injurious influences would result from errors 
and blunders in the plan of the work, or from extravagance and corruption 
in the expenditure of the money. Hence each locality, and every citizen and 
person interested therein, would have a direct and personal interest in the 
adoption of a wise plan, and in securing strict economy and entire fidelity in 
the expenditure of the money. While upon the rivers the plan of operations 
would not be so direct and simple as in the improvement of harbors, yet even 
there it is not perceived that any serious inconvenience or obstacle would 
arise to the success of the system. It would be necessary that the law, which 
shall grant the consent of Congress to the imposition of the duties, shall also 
give a like consent in conformity with the same provision of the Constitution, 
that where the river to be improved shall form the boundary of, or be situ- 
ated in two or more states, such states may enter into compacts with each 
other, by which they may, under their joint authority, levy the duties and 
improve the navigation. 

In this manner Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey could enter into 
a compact for the improvement of the Delaware River, by which each would 
appoint one commissioner, and the three commissioners constitute a board, 
which would levy the duties, prescribe the mode of their collection, devise 
the plan of the improvement, and superintend the expenditure of the money. 
The six states bordering on the Ohio River, in like manner, could each ap- 
point a commissioner, and the six constitute a board for the improvement 
of the navigation of that river from Pittsburg to the Mississippi. The same 
plan could be applied to the Mississippi, by which the nine states bordering 
upon that stream could each appoint one commissioner, and the nine form a 
board for the removal of snags and other obstructions in the channel from 
the Falls of St. Anthony to the Gulf of Mexico. There seems to be no diffi- 
culty, therefore, in the execution of the plan where the water-course lies in 
two or more states, or forms the boundary thereof in whole or in part ; and 
where the river is entirely within the limits of any one state, like the Illinois 
or Alabama, it may be improved in such manner as the Legislature may pre- 
scribe, subject only to such conditions and limitations as may be contained 
in the act of Congress giving its consent. All the necessities and difficulties 
upon this subject seem to have been foreseen and provided for in the same 
clause of the Constitution, wherein it is declared, in effect, that, with the con- 
sent of Congress, tonnage duties may be levied for the improvement of rivers 
and harbors, and that the several states may enter into compacts Avith each 
other for that purpose whenever it shall become necessary, subject only to 
such rules as Congress shall prescribe for the regulation of commerce. 

It only remains for me to notice some of the objections which have been 
urged to* this system. It has been said that tonnage duties are taxes upon 
the commerce of the country, which must be paid in the end by the consum- 
ers of the articles bearing the burden. I do not feel disposed to question the 
soundness of this proposition. I presume the same is true of all the duties, 
tolls, and charges upon all public works, whether constructed by government 
or individuals. The State of New York derives a revenue of more than two 
millions of dollars a year from her canals. Of course this is a tax upon the 
commerce of the country, and is borne by those who are interested in and 
benefited by it. This tax is a blessing or a burden, dependent upon the fact 
whether it has the effect to diminish or increase the cost of transportation. 
If we could not have enjoyed the benefit of the canal without the payment 
of the tolls, and if, by its construction and the payment, the cost of trans- 
portation has been reduced to one tenth the sum which we would have been 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 365 

compelled to have paid without it, who would not be willing to make a still 
further contribution to the security and facilities of navigation, if thereby the 
price of freights are to be reduced in a still greater ratio ? The tolls upon 
our own canal are a tax upon commerce, yet we cheerfully submit to the pay- 
ment for the reason that they were indispensable to the construction of a great 
work, which has had the effect to reduce the cost of transportation between 
the Lakes and the Mississippi far below what it would have been if the canal 
had not been made. All the charges on the fourteen thousand miles of rail- 
road now in operation in the different states of this Union are just so many 
taxes upon commerce and travel, yet we do not repudiate the whole railroad 
system on that account, nor object to the payment of such reasonable charges 
as are necessary to defray the expenses of constructing and operating them. 
But it may be said that if all the railroads and canals were built with funds 
from the national treasury, and were then thrown open to the uses of com- 
merce and travel free of charge, the rates of transportation would be less than 
they now are. It may be that the rates of transportation would be less, but 
would our taxes be reduced thereby ? No matter who is intrusted with the 
construction of the works, somebody must foot the bill. If the federal gov- 
ernment undertake to make railroads and canals, and river and harbor im- 
provements, somebody must pay the expenses. In order to meet this enlarged 
expenditure, it would be necessary to augment the revenue by increased taxes 
upon the commerce of the country. The whole volume of revenue which 
now fills and overflows the national treasury, with the exception of the small 
item resulting from the sales of public lands, is derived from a system of taxes 
imposed upon commerce and collected through the machinery of the custom- 
houses. No matter, therefore, whether these works are made by the federal 
government, or by stimulating and combining local and individual enterprise 
under state authority ; in any event, they remain a tax upon commerce to 
the extent of the expenditure. 

That system which will insure the construction of the improvements upon 
the best plan and at the smallest cost will prove the least oppressive to the 
tax-payer and the most useful to commerce. It requires no argument to 
prove — for every day's experience teaches us — that public works of every de- 
scription can be made at a much smaller cost by private enterprise, or by the 
local authorities directly interested in the improvement, than when construct- 
ed by the federal government. Hence, inasmuch as the expenses of con- 
structing river and harbor improvements must, under either plan, be defray- 
ed by a tax upon commerce in the first instance, and finally upon the whole 
people interested in that commerce, I am of the opinion that the burdens 
would be less under this system referred to in the message than by appropri- 
ations from the federal treasury. Those who seem not to have understood 
the difference have attempted to excite prejudice against this plan for the im- 
provement of navigations by comparing it to the burdens imposed upon the 
navigation of the Rhine, the Elbe, the Oder, and other rivers running through 
the German states. The people residing upon these rivers did not complain 
that they were required to pay duties for the improvement of their naviga- 
tion. Such was not the fact. No duties were imposed for any such pur- 
pose. No improvements in the navigation were ever made or contemplated 
by those who exacted the tolls. Taxes were extorted from the navigating 
interest by the petty sovereigns through whose dominions the rivers run, for 
the purpose of defraying the expenses of the pomp, and ceremonies, and fol- 
lies of vicious and corrupt courts. The complaint was, that grievous and un- 
neccssaiy burdens were imposed on navigation without expending any por- 
tion of the money for its protection and improvement. Their complaints 
were just. They should have protested, if they had lived under a govern- 
ment where the voice of the people could be heard, against the payment of 



366 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

any more or higher tolls than were necessary for the improvement of the 
navigation, and have insisted that the funds collected should be applied to 
that purpose and none other. In short, a plan similar to the one now pro- 
posed would have been a full and complete redress of all their grievances 
upon this subject. 

In conclusion, I will state that my object in addressing you this communi- 
cation is to invite your special attention to so much of the President's Mes- 
sage as relates to river and harbor improvements, with the view that when 
the Legislature shall assemble, either in special or general session, the sub- 
ject may be distinctly submitted to their consideration for such action as the 
great interests of commerce may demand. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfulby, your friend and fellow-citizen, 

S. A. Douglas. 

Joel A. Matteson, Governor of the State of Illinois. 

THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD GRANT. 

In 1843 Mr. Douglas entered Congress, and for over seven 
years he supported and struggled to obtain that magnificent 
grant of land which led to the construction of the Illinois Cen- 
tral Railroad, and eventually to the establishment of the grand 
web of railroads which is now spread out all over the North- 
western States. The construction of a great railroad from the 
junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers through the state 
to a point on the Illinois River, and thence north to Galena, 
had for many years been one of the leading topics in Illinois. 
It was regarded then and very justly as the one great thing 
needed to develop the resources of the state, and attract to its 
fruitful soil the tide of emigration. When the Internal Im- 
provement System broke down so irretrievably in the state, 
the attention of the people was directed to Congress and to 
the public lands as the only reliable resources from whence the 
necessary aid to construct the desired work could be expected. 

When Mr. Douglas entered Congress there was in existence 
in Illinois a company possessing certain rights to construct a 
railroad from Cairo to the north. This company was gener- 
ally known as the " Cairo Company ;" it had petitioned Con- 
gress for permission to enter as pre-emptions a certain quan- 
tity of land along the line of the proposed road. The title of 
the company was the " Great Western Railway Company." 
A Mr. Holbrook was the active operator in its affairs. 

In the Senate, at the session of '43,-4, a bill was introduced 
and reported upon favorably, granting to Holbrook's com- 
pany the right of way through the public lands for a railway, 
and entitling them to enter as pre-emptors the public lands 
along the route, they to pay the government eventually one 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 367 

dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. Mr. Douglas, who was, 
as we have stated, a member of the House, was strongly op- 
posed to this measure. He insisted that, if any grant was 
made, it should be made to the state of Illinois, and not to any 
private corporation. He had no faith in Holbrook or his asso- 
ciates, and had no idea that they would ever construct the 
road. He believed that the object of the operators was to ob- 
tain the pre-emption privilege, and then sell their charter with 
it in Europe, and thus get out of the matter. He urged that 
a failure to carry out in good faith the object in considera- 
tion of which the grant was made would have the effect to pre- 
vent a like application thereafter, would suspend the land sales 
for several years, would retard the settlement of the state, and 
give a very unjust impression abroad as to the prospects of 
Illinois as an improving and flourishing community. He urged 
that the scheme proposed should be abandoned, and that Con- 
gress should be asked for a direct grant of land to the state 
to aid it in constructing the proposed railroad. In these ob- 
jections he was sustained generally by his colleagues in the 
House. The bill as introduced was persisted in, and passed 
the Senate, and no action was had upon it in the House. At 
the next session a bill was introduced into the Senate the same 
as that of last session, with the exception that the " State of 
Illinois" was named as the grantee of the right of pre-emption 
instead of the "Great Western Railway Company." That 
bill was never taken up. At the session of '45-'6 a bill was 
introduced into the Senate, granting "to the State of Illinois 
alternate sections of the public land to aid in the construction 
of the Northern Cross and Central Railroads in said state." 
This bill was never taken up during that session. At the ses- 
sion of 1846-'7 a bill was introduced into the Senate granting 
the right of way and a pre-emption privilege, but containing 
no grant of land. This bill also was suffered to sleep, and no 
action was had upon it. 

In the winter of 1846-7 Mr. Douglas was elected to the 
Senate. During the summer of 1847 he traveled over a large 
portion of the state, and, wherever he made speeches, he dis- 
cussed the question of the Illinois Central Railroad. He took 
the position that whatever grant was obtained should be ob- 
tained for the state, and not for private individuals ; that the 
state ought not to take a mere grant of pre-emption privilege 



368 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

— a privilege of buying the government land for one dollar 
and a quarter per acre upon the condition of constructing a 
railroad through them ; and told the people he would apply 
for a grant of alternate sections of land to be given to the 
state gratuitously on condition that the road was constructed. 
He expressed a confident hope that that measure would re- 
ceive an undivided support in Illinois, in which case he had no 
doubt as to its ultimate success. He urged the propriety of 
holding public meetings and the signing of memorials having 
the obtaining of such a grant in view. 

The old bills contemplated but one road — that upon the line 
of the one projected by the state in '36, having its northern 
terminus at Galena, and carefully avoiding Chicago and the 
country lying between that city and the Illinois River. He 
stated his determination to include in the measure a road con- 
necting with the lakes, thus securing for it friends in the 
Northeastern and Middle States, who did not like a proposi- 
tion having for its natural tendency the diversion of all trade 
and traffic from the upper Mississippi toward New Orleans 
instead of toward the Atlantic sea-board. By making an ad- 
ditional road to the lakes at Chicago, a direct route would be 
made from the Southwest through to Philadelphia, Baltimore, 
and New York ; would connect the lower Mississippi with the 
lakes, the lakes and the Eastern States with the Southwest, 
and give to the vast region north and west of Illinois a com- 
munication both east and south. 

When Congress met in December, 1847, Mr. Douglas took 
his seat in the Senate. In a few weeks the old and familiar 
" Pre-emption" Bill was introduced and referred. In January 
Mr. Douglas introduced his bill granting alternate sections of 
the public land to the State of Illinois to aid in the construc- 
tion of a railroad from Cairo to Galena, with a branch from 
some appropriate point on the road to Chicago. It also em- 
braced a proposition for a road crossing the state from Indiana 
to the Mississippi River. Both bills were reported from the 
Senate Committee on public lands, of which the Hon. Sidney 
Breese of Illinois was chairman. The latter bill — the one pro- 
posed by Mr. Douglas — was subsequently taken up, and early 
in May was passed by the Senate. The other bill was not 
acted upon. 

The representatives in the House from Illinois all gave to 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 369 

the measure their cordial support. Toward the close of the 
session, however, it was laid on the table by a small majority. 
At the next session, '48-9, Mr. Douglas introduced his bill in 
the Senate again ; but, before any action was had in that body, 
the Illinois representatives in the House had succeeded in hav- 
ing the bill of the last session restored to its place on the cal- 
endar, but Congress adjourned without any farther action on 
the bill by the House. 

In December, 1849, Mr. Douglas, with his colleague, General 
Shields, who had succeeded Mr. Breese, and the Illinois dele- 
gation in the House, matured a bill having but one road in 
contemplation, and that the Illinois Central and its Chicago 
branch. That bill, in which all the Illinois members had a 
part in framing, was introduced into the Senate by Mr. Doug- 
las in January, 1850. The Compromise Measures of that year, 
and the question of Slavery generally, engrossed nearly all the 
time and discussions of the Senate. That subject came up al- 
most every morning, and frequently was considered several 
days in succession, to the exclusion of all other business. There 
was, however, another reason for delay. When it had become 
certain that the only act that would be seriously pressed by 
the Illinois representatives would be one making a grant of 
land to the State of Illinois, the parties interested in the 
Cairo Company saw at once an end to their schemes unless 
they could in some manner circumvent that policy. They 
therefore proceeded to the Legislature of Illinois, and after a 
siege, and by the most dexterous management, the Legislature 
was induced to pass a measure ceding to Holbrook and his 
associates all lands that might at any time be granted by Con- 
gress to the state for the purpose, or in aid of the construction 
of the Illinois Central Railroad. Here, then, was a new and 
dangerous pitfall prepared for the great measure. If Congress 
should grant land to the company, the state would be at the 
mercy of an irresponsible band of speculators ; to prevent this 
the policy had been changed, so as to secure the grant direct- 
ly to the state, leaving the latter full power and control over 
the entire matter, and free to act with whoever would offer 
the best terms. But Holbrook had effectually headed off this 
policy by the amendment which he had obtained to his charter. 
He came to Washington and importuned for the passage of 
the bill in the shape in which it had been introduced some 

Q2 



370 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

years before, or he would take tlie bill then pending. He pro- 
posed to be on intimate terms with Mr. Douglas, but the lat- 
ter declined the association. 

At length, when fully informed of all the facts, Mr. Douglas 
sent for Holbrook, and told him that no bill of any kind would 
be suffered to pass unless the grant was made directly to the 
state, and to be held and disposed of by the state freely, and 
unlimited by any previous charter either to Holbrook or any 
one else. If Holbrook persisted in the right obtained under 
his charter and the subsequent legislation of Illinois, he, Mr. 
Douglas, would expose and denounce the whole scheme as one 
intended to use the name of the state to obtain an immense 
property for irresponsible and dishonest men to speculate and 
grow rich upon. He refused to move in the matter in Con- 
gress unless Holbrook would first sign and execute a good and 
valid release of every right, claim, and demand to any lands 
that might be granted by Congress to the state for railroad or 
other purposes. If Holbrook would not sign such a release, 
and attempted to have any bill passed, Mr. Douglas notified 
him that he would denounce and expose the Avhole game. It 
was a serious matter to the state, and equally so to Holbrook. 
It was total loss to one or the other. If the law passed as 
matters then stood, Holbrook's company got all, the state 
nothing. If Holbrook's company surrendered, as demanded 
by Mr. Douglas, then the state got all, and the company noth- 
ing. If Holbrook refused to surrender, Douglas stood in his 
way of obtaining any grant of any kind. The alternatives 
were not inviting to Mr. Holbrook ; but at length he yielded ; 
he signed and delivered the demanded release to the state, 
which release was forwarded to Springfield, and filed in the 
archives of the State of Illinois. Thus was it that the grant 
was received by the state unfettered and unimpaired by any of 
the adroit schemes of the wily speculators upon the public wel- 
fare. Having relieved the state of the Holbrook Company's 
claim, Mr. Douglas at once undertook to get the bill considered. 

It was not until April 29 that he could induce the Senate to 
consider the bill, and then only after a most spirited and fer- 
vent appeal. Having once got the bill before the Senate, he 
pressed it day after day Until the 2d of May, when, notwith- 
standing the covert hostility of some Western senators, the bill 
passed — yeas 26, nays 14. 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 37 1 

The bill was taken to the House, and there, by the skill, good 
management, and unity of action of the representatives of the 
state, the House was eventually brought to a vote, and the act 
making the donation of public land to the State of Illinois, to 
aid in the construction of the Illinois Central Railroad and its 
branch to Chicago, became a law. 

On his return to Illinois at the close of the session, Mr. 
Douglas and General Shields were tendered a public dinner 
by the citizens of Chicago, in consideration of their services in 
obtaining the passage of this act. The two senators, in de- 
clining the honor, took the occasion to award to their col- 
leagues in the House the full measure of credit for the suc- 
cessful carrying of the bill through the intricate parliamentary 
mazes that surrounded its pathway to completion. 

The great Central Railroad of Illinois, the beginning of a 
system of great works, is now completed. The benefits it has 
produced to the state can not be calculated. During the five 
years immediately following the passage of the bill the popu- 
lation of Illinois increased from 850,000 to over 1,300,000. 
Other railroads have been constructed, and to clay the Illinois 
Central Railroad is but a trunk to which and from which the 
travel and transportation of the Valley of the Mississippi bend 
their way by roads from every quarter of the country. The peo- 
ple of Illinois and of the Northwest will never be indifferent 
to the great benefits resulting from the passage of the Illinois 
Central Railroad land grant, nor will the men who were in- 
strumental in achieving the great work be forgotten by a 
grateful people. 

Mr. Douglas has always supported and voted for the bills 
making grants for similar purposes to the states of Alabama, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Michigan, 
Wisconsin, Minnesota, aud perhaps other states. 

THE PACIFIC RAILROAD. 

Mr. Douglas has been a friend and supporter of what he has 
himself styled " the great measure of the age" — the construc- 
tion of a railroad to the Pacific Ocean. He has repeatedly in- 
troduced bills for that end, and has as repeatedly been chosen 
on select committees having that subject in charge. By vote 
and by speech he has exhibited the sincerity of his interest in 
this great national work, and has suffered no occasion to pass 



372 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

without appealing to the friends of the road to drop all cor^- 
troversy as to the details, and secure the substance, the main 
thing, the road itself. He was originally in favor of authoriz- 
ing the construction of three roads — one at the north, one at 
the centre, and the other at the south, leaving to the con- 
tractors the choice of such route as private interest and enter- 
prise would select as the most promising of success. He has 
always opposed an arbitrary declaration by Congress of the 
route to be taken, preferring to fix only the termini, and leave 
to those interested in the construction of the road to determine 
the route between the given points, by such considerations as 
time and experience might suggest. 

Bills for the construction of the Pacific railroad have been 
before Congress for several years, and they have alwaj^s re- 
ceived the support of Mr. Douglas. If no act has passed for 
that work, no part of the serious responsibility for the omis- 
sion of duty can rest upon him. He has never failed in his 
duty toward this important national work. 

When the bill was under consideration in the Senate in 
1858, Mr. Douglas, on the 17th of April, thus stated his views : 

Mr. President, — I have witnessed with deep regret the indications that this 
measure is to be defeated at the present session of Congress. I had hoped 
that this Congress would signalize itself by inaugurating the great measure 
of connecting the Mississippi Valley with the Pacific Ocean by a railroad. I 
had supposed that the people of the United States had decided the question 
at the last presidential election in a manner so emphatic as to leave no doubt 
that their will was to be carried into effect. I believe that all the presiden- 
tial candidates at the last election were committed to the measure. All the 
presidential platforms sanctioned it as a part of their creed. I believe it is 
about the only measure on which there was entire unanimity ; and it is a very 
curious fact that the measure which commanded universal approbation — the 
measure upon which all parties united — a measure against which no man 
could be found, previous to the election, to raise his voice — should be the one 
that can receive no support, nor the co-operation of any one party, while dis- 
puted measures can occupy the whole time of Congress, and can be carried 
through successfully. I make no complaint of any political party, nor of any 
gentleman who opposes this bill ; but it did strike me that it was a fact to be 
noticed, that a measure of this description, so long before the country, so well 
understood by the people, and receiving such universal sanction from them, 
should not be carried into effect. If the bill which has been devised by the 
committee is not the best that can be framed, let it be amended and modified 
until its objectionable features shall be removed. Let us not make a test 
question of this particular form of bill or that particular form; of this partic- 
ular route or that particular route ; of the benefits to this section or that sec- 
tion. If there is any thing wrong in the details, in the form, in the construc- 
tion of the bill, let the objectionable features be removed, and cany out the 
great object of a railroad communication between the Mississippi Valley and 
the Pacific Ocean. 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 3*73 

Various objections have been raised to this bill, some referring to the route, 
involving sectional consideration ; others to the form of the bill ; others to the 
present time as inauspicious for the construction of such a railroad under any 
circumstances. Sir, I have examined this bill very carefully. I was a mem- 
ber of the committee that framed it, and 1 gave my cordial assent to the re- 
port. I am free to say that I think it is the best bill that has ever been re- 
ported to the Senate of the United States for the construction of a Pacific 
railroad. I say this with entire disinterestedness, for I have heretofore re- 
ported several myself, and I believe I have invariably been a member of the 
committees that have reported such bills. I am glad to find that we have 
progressed to such an extent as to be able to improve on the former bills that 
have, from time to time, been brought before the Senate of the United States. 
This may not be perfect. It is difficult to make human legislation entirely 
perfect ; at any rate, to so construct it as to bring about an entire unanimity 
of opinion upon a question that involves, to some extent, selfish, sectional, 
and partisan considerations. But, sir, I think this bill is fair. First, it is 
fair in the location of the route, as between the different sections. The ter- 
mini are fixed. Then the route between the termini is to be left to the con- 
tractors and owners of the road, who are to put their capital into it, and, for 
weal or for woe, are to be responsible for its management. 

What is the objection to these termini ? San Francisco, upon the Pacific, 
is not only central, but it is the great commercial mart, the great concentra- 
ting point, the great entrepot for the commerce of the Pacific, not only in 
the present, but in the future. That point was selected as the western ter- 
minus for the reason that there seemed to be a unanimous sentiment that 
whatever might be the starting-point on the east, the system would not be 
complete until it should reach the city of San Francisco on the west. I sug- 
gested myself, in the committee, the selection of that very point ; not that I 
had any objection to other points ; not that I was any more friendly to San 
Francisco and her inhabitants than to any other port on the Pacific ; but be- 
cause I believe that to be the commanding port, the large city where trade 
concentrates, and its position indicated it as the proper terminus on the Pa- 
cific Ocean. 

Then, in regard to the eastern terminus, a point on the Missouri Eiver is 
selected for various reasons. One is, that it is central as between the North 
and South — as nearly central as could be selected. It was necessary to com- 
mence on the Missouri River, if you were going to take a central route, in 
order that the starting-point might connect with navigation, so that you 
might reach it by boats in carrying your iron, your supplies, and your mate- 
rials for the commencement and the construction of the road. It was essen- 
tial that you should commence at a point of navigation so that you coidd 
connect with the sea-board. If you start it at a point back in the interior 
five hundred or a thousand miles, as it is proposed, at El Paso, from the nav- 
igable waters of the Mississippi, it would cost you more money to carry the 
iron, provisions, supplies, and men to that starting-point, than it would to 
make a road from the Mississippi to the starting-point, in order to begin the 
work. In that case it would be a matter of economy to make a road to your 
starting-point in order to begin. Hence, in my opinion, it would be an act 
of folly to think of starting a railroad to the Pacific at a point eight hundred 
or a thousand miles in the interior, away from any connection with naviga- 
ble water, or with other railroads already in existence. 

For these reasons, we agreed in the bill to commence on the Missouri Riv- 
er. When you indicate that river, a little diversity of opinion arises as to 
what point on the river shall be selected. There are various respectable, 
thriving towns on either bank of the river, each of which thinks it is the ex- 
act position where the road ought to commence. I suppose that Kansas City, 



374 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Wyandott, Weston, Leavenworth, Atchison, Platte's Mouth City, Omaha, 
De Soto, Sioux City, and various other towns whose names have not become 
familiar to us, and have found no resting-place on the map, each thinks that 
it has the exact place where the road should begin. Well, sir, I do not de- 
sire to show any preference between these towns ; either of them would suit 
me very well ; and we leave it to the contractors to say which shall be the 
one. We leave the exact eastern terminus open for the reason that the pub- 
lic interests will be substantially as well served by the selection of the one as 
the other. It is not so at the western terminus. San Francisco does not oc- 
cupy that relation to the towns on the Pacific coast that these little towns on 
the Missouri River do to the country east of the Missouri. The public have 
no material interest in the question whether it shall start at the mouth of the 
Kansas, at Weston, at Leavenworth, at St. Joseph, at Platte's Mouth, or at 
Sioux City. Either connects with the great lines ; either would be substan- 
tially central as between North and South. So far as I am concerned, I 
should not care a sixpence which of those towns was selected as the starting- 
point, because they start there upon a plain that stretches for eight hundred 
miles, and can connect with the whole railroad system of the country. You 
can go directly west. You can bend to the north and connect with the 
northern roads, or bend to the south and connect with the southern roads. 

The senator from Georgia (Mr. Iverson) would be satisfied, as I understand, 
with the termini, if we had selected one intermediate point, so as to indicate 
the route that should be taken between the termini. I understand that he 
would be satisfied if we should indicate that it should go south of Santa Fe, 
so as to include as the probable line the Albuquerque route, or the one on the 
thirty-fifth parallel, or the one south of it. Sh - , I am free to say that, indi- 
vidually, I should have no objection to the route indicated by the senator 
from Georgia. I have great faith that the Albuquerque route is an exceed- 
ingly favorable one ; favorable in its grades, in the shortness of its distances, 
in its climate, the absence of deep snow, and in the topography of the coun- 
try. While it avoids very steep grades, it furnishes, perhaps, as much of 
grass, of timber, of water, of materials necessary for the construction and re- 
pair of the road, if not more, than any other route. As a Northern man, 
living upon the great line of the lakes, you can not indicate a route that I 
think would subserve our interests, and the great interests of this country, 
better than that ; yet, if I expressed the opinion that the line ought to go on 
that route between the termini, some other man would say it ought to go on 
Governor Stevens's extreme northern route ; some one else would say it ought 
to go on the South Pass route ; and we should divide the friends of the meas- 
ure as to the point at which the road should pass the mountains — whether at 
the extreme north, at the centre, the Albuquerque route, or the further south- 
ern one down in Arizona — and we should be unable to decide between our- 
selves which was best. 

I have sometimes thought that the extreme northern route, known as the 
Stevens' route, was the best, as furnishing better grass, more timber, more 
water, more of those elements necessary in constructing, repairing, operating, 
and maintaining a road, than any other. I think now that the preference, 
merely upon routes, is between the northern or Stevens's route on the one 
side, and the Albuquerque route on the other. Still, as I never expect to put 
a dollar of money into the road, as I never expect to have any agency or con- 
nection with or interest in it, I am willing to leave the selection of the route 
between the termini to those who are to put their fortunes and connect their 
character with the road, and to be responsible, in the most tender of all 
points, if they make a mistake in the selection. But for these considerations, 
I should have cheerfully yielded to the suggestion of the senator from Georgia 
to fix the crossing-point on the Rio Grande River. 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 3*75 

But, sir, I am unwilling to lose this great measure merely because of a dif- 
ference of opinion as to what shall be the pass selected in the Rocky Mount- 
ains through which the road shall run. I believe it is a great national meas- 
ure. I believe it is the greatest practical measure now pending before the 
country. I believe that we have arrived at that period in our history when 
our great substantial interests require it. The interests of commerce, the 
great interests of travel and communication — those still gi-eater interests that 
bind the Union together, and are to make and preserve the continent as one 
and indivisible — all demand that this road shall be commenced, prosecuted, 
and completed at the earliest practicable moment. 

I am unwilling to postpone the bill until next December. I have seen 
these postponements from session to session for the last eight or ten years, 
with the confident assurance every year that at the next session we should 
have abundance of time to take up the bill and act upon it. Sir, will you 
be better prepared at the next session than now ? We have now the whole 
summer before us, drawing our pay, and proposing to perform no service. 
Next December you will have but ninety days, with all the unfinished busi- 
ness left over, your appropriation bills on hand, and not only the regular 
bills, but the new deficiency bill ; and you will postpone this measure again 
for the want of time to consider it then. I think, sir, Ave had better grapple 
with the difficulties that surround this question now, when it is fairly before 
us, when we have time to consider it, and when I think we can act upon it 
as dispassionately, as calmly, as wisely, as we shall ever be able to do. 

I have regretted to see the question of sectional advantages brought into 
this discussion. If you are to have but one road, fairness and justice would 
plainly indicate that that one should be located as near the centre as practi- 
cable. The Missouri River is as near the centre and the line of this road is 
as near as it can be made ; and if there is but one to be made, the route now 
indicated, in my opinion, is fair, is just, and ought to be taken. I have here- 
tofore been of the opinion that we ought to have three roads : one in the cen- 
tre, one in the extreme south, and one in the extreme north. If I thought 
we could carry the three, and could execute them in any reasonable time, I 
would now adhere to that policy and prefer it ; but I have seen enough here 
during this session of Congress to satisfy me that but one can pass, and to 
ask for three at this time is to lose the whole. Believing that that is the 
temper, that that is the feeling, and, I will say, the judgment of the members 
of both houses of Congress, I prefer to take one road rather than to lose all 
in the vain attempt to get three. If there were to be three, of course the 
one indicated in this bill would be the central ; one would be north of it, and 
another south of it. But if there is to be but one, the central one should be 
taken ; for the north, by bending a little down south, can join it ; and the 
south, by leaning a little to the north, can unite with it too ; and our South- 
ern friends ought to be able to bend and lean a little, as well as to require 
us to bend and lean all the time, in order to join them. The central position 
is the just one, if there is to be but one road. The concession should be as 
much on the one side as on the other. I am ready to meet gentlemen half 
way on every question that does not violate principle, and they ought not to 
ask us to meet them more than half way where there is no principle involved, 
and nothing but expediency. 

Then, sir, why not unite upon this bill? We are told it is going to involve 
the government of the United States in countless millions of expenditure. 
How is that ? Certainly not under this bill, not by authority of this bill, not 
without violating this bill. The bill under consideration provides that when 
a section of the road shall be made, the government may advance a portion 
of the lands, and $12,500 per mile in bonds on the section thus made, in or- 
der to aid in the construction of the next, holding a lien upon the road for 



376 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the refunding of the money thus advanced. Under this bill it is not possible 
that the contractors can ever obtain more than $12,500 per mile on each 
mile of the road that is completed. It is, therefore, very easy to compute 
the cost to the government. Take the length of the road in miles, and multi- 
ply it by $12,500, and you have the cost. If you make the computation, you 
will find it will come to a fraction over $20,000,000. The limitation in "the 
bill is, that in no event shall it exceed $25,000,000. Therefore, by the terms 
of the bill, the undertaking of the government is confined to $25,000,000; 
and, by the calculation, it will be less than that sum. Is that a sum that 
would bankrupt the Treasury of the United States ? 

I predict to you now, sir, that the Mormon campaign has cost, and has led 
to engagements and undertakings that, when redeemed, will cost more than 
$25,000,000, if not double that sum. During the last six months, on account 
of the Mormon rebellion, expenses have been paid and undertakings have 
been assumed which will cost this government more than the total expendi- 
ture which can possibly be made in conformity with the provisions of this 
bill. If you had had this railroad made you would have saved the whole 
cost which the government is to advance in this little Mormon war alone. 
If you have a general Indian war in the mountains, it will cost you twice the 
amount called for by this bill. If you should have a war with a European 
power, the construction of this road woidd save many fold its cost in the trans- 
portation of troops and munitions of war to the Pacific Ocean, in carrying on 
your operations. 

In an economical point of view I look upon it as a wise measure. It is 
one of economy as a war measure alone, or as a peace measure for the pur- 
pose of preventing a war. Whether viewed as a war measure, to enable you 
to check rebellion in a Territory, or hostilities with the Indians, or to carry 
on vigorously a war with a European power, or viewed as a peace measure, 
it is a wise policy, dictated by every consideration of convenience and public 
good. 

Again, sir, in carrying the mails, it is an economical measure. As the 
senator from Georgia has demonstrated, the cost of carrying the mails alone 
to the Pacific Ocean for thirty years, under the present contracts, is double 
the amount of the whole expenditure under this bill for the same time in the 
construction and working of the road. In the transportation of mails, then, 
it would save twice its cost. The transportation of army aud navy supplies 
would swell the amount to three or four fold. How many years will it be 
before the government will receive back, in transportation, the whole cost of 
this advance of aid in the construction of the road ? 

But, snr, some gentlemen think it is an unsound policy, leading to the doc- 
trine of internal improvements by the federal government within the differ- 
ent states of the Union. We are told we must continue the road to the lim- 
its of the Territories, and not extend it into the states, because it is supposed 
that entering a state with this contract violates some great principle of state- 
rights. Mr. President, the committee considered that proposition, and they 
avoided that objection in the estimation of the most strict, rigid, tight-laced 
State-rights men that we have in the body. We struck out the provision 
in the bill first drawn, that the President should contract for the construction 
of a railroad from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and followed an 
example that we found on the statute-book for carrying the mails from Alex- 
andria to Richmond, Virginia — an act passed about the time when the reso- 
lutions of 1798 were adopted, and the report of 1799 was made — an act that 
we thought came exactly within the spirit of those resolutions. That act, ac- 
cording to my recollection, was, that the Department be authorized to con- 
tract for the transportation of the United States mail by four-horse post-coach- 
es, with closed backs, so as to protect it from the weather and rain, from Al- 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 377 

exandria to Richmond, in the State of Virginia. It occurred to this com- 
mittee that if it had been the custom, from the beginning of this government 
to this day, to make contracts for the transportation of the mails in four-horse 
post-coaches, built in a particular manner, and the contractor left to furnish 
his own coaches and his own horses, and his own means of transportation, we 
might make a similar contract for the transportation of the mails by railroad 
from one point to another, leaving the contractor to make his own railroad, 
and furnish his own cars, and comply with the terms of the contract. 

There is nothing in this bill that violates any one principle which has pre- 
vailed in every mail contract that has been made, from the days of Dr. 
Franklin down to the elevation of James Buchanan to the presidency. Ev- 
ery contract for carrying the mail by horse, from such a point to such a point, 
in saddle-bags, involves the same principle. Every contract for carrying it 
from such a point to such a point in two-horse hacks, with a covering to pro- 
tect it from the storm, involves the same principle. Every contract to car- 
ry it from such a point to such a point in four-horse coaches of a particular 
description, involves the same principle. You contracted to carry the mails 
from New York to Liverpool in ships of two thousand tons each, to be con- 
structed according to a model prescribed by the Navy Department, leaving 
the contractor to furnish his own ships, and receive so much pay. That in- 
volves the same principle. 

You have, therefore, carried out the principle of this bill in every contract 
you have ever had for mails, whether it be upon the land or upon the water. 
In every mail contract you have had, you have carried out the identical prin- 
ciple involved in this bill — simply the right to contract for the transportation 
of the United States mails, troops, munitions of Avar, army and navy supplies, 
at fair prices, in the manner you prescribed, leaving the contracting party to 
furnish the mode and means of transportation. That is all there is in it. I 
do not see how it can violate any party creed ; how it can violate any prin- 
ciple c:' state-rights; how it can interfere with any man's conscientious scru- 
ples. Then, sir, where is the objection ? 

If you look on this as a measure of economy and a commercial measure, 
the argument is all in favor of the bill. It is true, the senator from Massa- 
chusetts has suggested that it is idle to suppose that the trade of China is to 
centre in San Francisco, and then pay sixty dollars a ton for transportation 
across the continent by a railroad to Boston. It was very natural that he 
should indicate Boston, as my friend from Georgia might, perhaps, have 
thought of Savannah, or my friend from South Carolina might have indi- 
cated Charleston, or the senator from Louisiana might have indicated New 
Orleans. But I, living at the head of the great lakes, would have made the 
computation from Chicago, and my friend from Missouri would have thought 
it would have been very well, perhaps, to take it from St. Louis. When you 
are making this computation, I respectfully submit you must make the cal- 
culation from the sea-board to the centre of the continent, and not charge 
transportation all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific ; for suppose you 
do not construct this road, and these goods come by ship to Boston, it will 
cost something to take them by railroad to Chicago, and a little more to take 
them by railroad to the Missouri River, half way back to San Francisco 
again. If you select the centre of the continent, the great heart and centre 
of the Republic — the Mississippi Valley — as the point at which you are to 
concentrate your trade, and from which it is to diverge, you will find that the 
transportation of it by railroad would not be much greater from San Fran- 
cisco than from Boston. It would be nearly the same from the Pacific that 
it is from the Atlantic ; and the calculation must be made in that point of 
view. There is the centre of consumption, and the centre of those great prod- 
ucts that are sent abroad in all quarters to pay for articles imported. The 



378 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

centre of production, the centre of consumption, the future centre of the pop- 
ulation of the continent, is the point to which, and from which, your calcula- 
tion should be made. 

Then, sir, if it costs sixty dollars per ton for transportation from San Fran- 
cisco to Boston by railroad, half way you may say it will cost thirty dollars 
a ton. The result, then, of coming from San Francisco to the centre by rail- 
road would be to save transportation by ship from San Francisco to Boston, 
in addition to the railroad transportation into the interior. 

But, sir, I dissent from a portion of the gentleman's argument, so far as it 
relates to the transportation even from San Francisco to Boston. I admit 
that heavy articles of cheap value and great bulk would go by ship, that 
being the cheapest mode of communication ; but light articles, costly articles, 
expensive articles, those demanded immediately, and subject to decay from 
long voyages and delays, would come directly across by railroad, and what 
you would save in time would be more than the extra expense of the trans- 
portation. You must add to that the risk of the tropics, which destroys 
many articles, and the process which is necessary to be gone through with to 
prepare articles for the sea-voyage is to be taken into the account. I have 
had occasion to witness that evil in one article of beverage very familiar to 
you all. Let any man take one cup of tea that came from China to Kussia 
overland, without passing twice under the equator, and he will never be rec- 
onciled to a cup of tea that has passed under the equator. The genuine ar- 
ticle, that has not been manipulated and prepared to pass under the equator, 
is worth tenfold more than that which we receive here. Preparation is nec- 
essary to enable it to pass the tropics, and the long, damp voyage makes as 
much difference in the article of tea as the difference between a green apple 
and a dried apple, green corn and dried corn, sent abroad. So you will find 
it to be with fruits ; so it will be with all the expensive and precious articles, 
and especially those liable to decay and to injury, either by exposure to a 
tropical climate or to the moisture of a long sea-voyage. 

Then, sir, in a commercial point of view, this road will be of vast import- 
ance. There is another consideration that I will allude to for a moment. 
It will extend our trade more than any other measure that you can devise, 
certainly more than any one that you now have in contemplation. The peo- 
ple are all anxious for the annexation of Cuba as soon as it can be obtained 
on fair and honorable terms — and why ? In order to get the small, pitiful 
trade of that island. We all talk about the great importance of Central 
America in order to extend our commerce ; it is valuable to the extent it 
goes. But Cuba, Central America, and all the islands surrounding them put 
together, are not a thousandth part of the value of the great East India trade 
that would be drawn first to our western coast, and then across to the Valley 
of the Mississippi, if this railroad be constructed. Sir, if we intend to extend 
our commerce — if we intend to make the great ports of the world tributary 
to our wealth, we must prosecute our trade eastward or westward, as you 
please ; we must penetrate the Pacific, its islands, and its continent, where the 
great mass of the human family reside — where the articles that have built up 
the powerful nations of the world have always come from. That is the di- 
rection in which we should look for the expansion of our commerce and of 
our trade. That is the direction our public policy should take — a direction 
that is facilitated by the great work now proposed to be made. 

I care not whether you look at it in a commercial point of view, as a mat- 
ter of administrative economy at home, as a question of military defense, or 
in reference to the building up of the national wealth, and power, and glory ; 
it is the great measure of the age— a measure that in my opinion has been 
postponed too long — and I frankly confess to you that I regard the postpone- 
ment to next December to mean till after the next presidential election. No 



INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 379 

man hopes or expects, when you have not time to pass it in the early spring, 
at the long session, that you are going to consider it at the short session. 
When you come here at the next session, the objection will be that you must 
not bring forward a measure of this magnitude, because it will affect the po- 
litical relations of parties, and it will be postponed then, as it was two years 
ago, to give the glory to the incoming administration, each party probably 
thinking that it would have the honor of carrying out the measure. Hence, 
sir, I regard the proposition of postponement till December to mean till after 
the election of 1860. 

I desire to see all the pledges made in the last contest redeemed during 
this term, and let the next president, and the parties under him, redeem the 
pledges and obligations assumed during the next campaign. The people of 
all parties at the last presidential election decreed that this road was to be 
made. The question is now before us. We have time to consider it. We 
have all the means necessary, as much now as we can have at any other 
time. The senator from Massachusetts intimates that, the treasury being 
bankrupt now, we can not afford the money. That senator also remarked 
that we were just emerging from a severe commercial crisis — a great com- 
mercial revulsion — which had carried bankruptcy in its train. If we have 
just emerged from it, if we have passed it, this is the very time of all others 
when a great enterprise should be begun. It might have been argued when 
we saw that crisis coming, before it reached us, that Ave should furl our sails 
and trim our ship for the approaching storm ; but when it has exhausted its 
rage, when all the mischief has been done that could be inflicted, when the 
bright sun of day is breaking forth, when the sea is becoming calm, and 
there is but little visible of the past tempest, when the nausea of sea-sick- 
ness is succeeded by joyous exhilaration, inspired by the hope of a fair voy- 
age, let men feel elated and be ready to commence a great work like this, so 
as to complete it before another commercial crisis or revulsion shall come 
upon us. 

Sir, if you pass this bill, no money can be expended under it until one sec- 
tion of the road has been made. The surveys must be completed, the route 
must be located, the land set aside and surveyed, and a section of the road 
made, before a dollar can be drawn from the treasury. If you can pass the 
bill now, it can not make any drain on the treasury for at least two years 
to come ; and who doubts that all the effects of the late crisis will have pass- 
ed away before the expiration of those two years. 

Mr. President, this is the auspicious time, either with a view to the inter- 
ests of the country, or to that stagnation which exists between political par- 
ties, which is calculated to make it a measure of the country rather than a 
partisan measure, or to the commercial and monetary affairs of the nation, or 
with reference to the future. Look upon it in any point of view, now is the 
time ; and I am glad that the senator from Louisiana has indicated, as I am 
told he has, that the motion for postponement is a test question ; for I con- 
fess I shall regard it as a test vote on a Pacific railroad during this term, 
whatever it may be in the future. I hope that we shall pass the bill now. 



380 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 



The reader who has given attention to those pages of this 
book relating to the Lecoinpton controversy in Congress will 
of course be informed of many of the events connected with 
and leading to the most memorable election held in the State 
of Illinois during the year 1858. To many persons, however, 
it will be serviceable that, before entering upon the description 
of the contest of that year, a brief repetition of some leading 
facts, and a detailed history of others, should be given now. 

When the announcement was made by telegraph from St. 
Louis that Mr. John Calhoun and his associates in the Lecomp- 
ton Convention had, for the purpose of securing for their mon- 
strosity a legal substance which it could never obtain at the 
hands of the people, wantonly and wickedly resolved to de- 
clare the Lecompton Constitution as already made, and wait- 
ing only the sanction of Congress to erect it as the government 
of the people of the unfortunate Territory, there was in all Illi- 
nois a universal expression of indignation. Calhoun had for 
many years been an active Democrat in the central part of the 
state, and he was believed to be a man who, whatever other 
failings and imperfections he might have, would never consent, 
under any circumstances, to embarrass or injure his party 
friends by rash or unjustifiable political action. In short, he 
was esteemed by all as a " safe and reliable" man, who could 
not be seduced, under any state of things, to do political acts, 
the effect of which was to destroy, or, to say the least, embar- 
rass and place his party in a most unenviable position before 
the country. For many days those who had a personal ac- 
quaintance with the " Lord President," as he was subsequent- 
ly styled by the papers of the state, declined giving credit to 
the reports of the action of the convention, but these doubts 
were but of short duration ; letters from a number of persons 
in the Territory, and from Calhoun himself, soon removed all 
question, not only as to the action of the convention, but also 
as to the full participation of Calhoun in the iniquitous pro- 
ceedings. 



THE CAMPAIGN 0E 1858. 381 

From one end of the state to the other, the Democratic 
newspaper press immediately and determinedly denounced the 
action of the convention, and of the daring attempt by Cal- 
houn and his associates to defraud the people of Kansas of a 
sacred right ; to violate the entire spirit of the Kansas-Nebras- 
ka Act ; to repudiate the saving and most peculiar principle 
of the Cincinnati platform ; to disregard and contemptuously 
set aside the peremptory and pointed instructions of Mr. Bu- 
chanan, and the earnest advice and appeals of Governor Walker. 
In the very expressive language of Mr. Buchanan, no Demo- 
crat in Illinois " had any serious doubt" but that the conven- 
tion would submit the Constitution to the people, and each 
Democrat in the state felt that the convention, in utterly scorn- 
ing and repudiating the instructions of Mr. Buchanan to Gov- 
ernor Walker, had sought, through pure wantonness, to treat 
the instructions of the venerable President as the " fogyism" 
of old age. The Chicago Times, Springfield Register, Quincy 
Herald, Galena Courier, Peoria JS T eics, and Alton Democrat — 
the daily Democratic papers of the state — without any previ- 
ous consultation or understanding, simultaneously, and with all 
their power, proclaimed the indignant feeling of the Democ- 
racy in their respective localities, and called upon the party to 
take immediate action, by meetings and resolutions, to sustain 
Mr. Buchanan and the Cincinnati platform against the cow- 
ardly and insolent attempt on the part of the Lecompton Con- 
vention to treat both with sovereign contempt. The weekly 
Democratic press of the state followed with great unanimity, 
and within ten days from the receipt of the first intelligence 
of the action of the Lecompton Convention, Illinois, speak- 
ing through the Democratic press, had become unanimously 
pledged to the support and defense of the President in his ef- 
forts to preserve the Cincinnati platform pure and inviolate. 
No Democrat in Illinois believed the silly slander of a North- 
ern senator, that " the administration was a little weak in the 
knees ;" and all relied implicitly that the policy of the govern- 
ment, so clearly and emphatically enunciated in the speeches 
of Governor Walker and in his instructions from the hand of 
General Cass, would be carried out to the last extremity, there- 
by vindicating the power and majesty of the great principle 
embraced in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, so cordially and unani- 
mously ratified and adopted by the Democracy at Cincinnati. 



382 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

There was not one Democratic newspaper in all Illinois that 
did not, with all its power, sustain the President and Governor 
Walker against the unfortunate and ill-judged action of John 
Calhoun and his associates at Lecompton. 

Judge Douglas was at that time in Chicago ; though no pub- 
lic meeting was held at which he could offer his views, there 
was no doubt entertained by any one, Democrat or Republi- 
can, as to his determination to sustain the President in the 
policy so recently declared by the administration. In a few 
days Democratic newspapers in other states came into Illinois 
sustaining the administration and denouncing the Lecompton- 
ites. From the entire Northwest there was not a Democratic 
paper which opposed the administration by sustaining Cal- 
houn. The papers of New York gave to the Democracy of 
Illinois the most unbounded assurance that the Democracy of 
that state would unite with their Western brethren in a vigor- 
ous support of the President. Some weeks later, the Washing- 
ton Union, which, since the action of the Kansas Convention, 
had remained silent, appeared with an elaborate editorial, claim- 
ing in behalf of the slaveholder the constitutional right to carry 
his slaves into any state or Territory of the United States, and 
hold them in such state or Territory by virtue of a constitu- 
tional right, in defiance of the laws of such state or Territory. 
As this matter has been treated of in one of Mr. Douglas's 
speeches, it is unnecessary to do more here than to repeat that 
this article of the Union was the first indication that the De- 
mocracy of Illinois had that any change was contemplated in 
the policy of the administration ; and following immediately 
upon this strange declaration of the most unsound and unten- 
able propositions was a quasi endorsement of the Lecompton 
fraud, and a suggestion that the best course to pursue was to 
acquiesce in it, and thus get rid of a " distracting question." 
Still, so complete had been Mr. Buchanan's committal to the 
principles of the Kansas-Nebraska Act ; so acknowledged and 
boasted of General Cass's devotion to unrestrained squatter 
sovereignty; so well known Mr. Cobb's liberal views, pro- 
claimed so eloquently upon the hills and in the valleys of Penn- 
sylvania during 1856 ; so emphatic had been Mr. Toucey's en- 
dorsement of the right of self-government, that human intellect 
refused to understand how, in one moment, and without any 
rational pretense or occasion, an administration could thus 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 383 

suddenly give the negative to its past history and official acts, 
and render ridiculous at least a majority of its members by 
making them active supporters of proceedings planned and 
perpetrated in positive conflict with their opinions and speech- 
es during a long, excited, and severe political contest of but 
very recent date. 

Up to the appearance of these articles in the Washington 
Union, the Republican party had been panic-stricken. The 
only hope that that party could have had of perpetuating its 
existence in the Northwest was a want of fidelity on the part 
of the Democracy to the Cincinnati platform ; and when the 
Democracy of the Northwest, without a dissenting voice, united 
in sustaining the administration in its Kansas policy and in re- 
pudiating the action of the Lecompton Convention, because it 
violated the Cincinnati platform, that party saw its own ex- 
tinction as plainly as it could be written. Its first hope was 
that Douglas, with a view of being considered the peculiar 
friend of the South, would sustain the Lecompton Convention. 
That hope being dissipated, the Republican party was prepar- 
ing for its demise, when, from a quarter most unexpected, came 
words of cheering consolation, of hope, and of future glory. 
There is no use in disguising the fact, even were it possible to 
do so, that, had the administration, in December, 1857, remain- 
ed true to its previously maintained policy, and urged upon 
Congress the duty of disregarding any and all propositions for 
the admission of Kansas tainted with fraud, and not approved 
by the free and deliberate choice of the people, the Republican 
party Would have virtually ceased to exist as an organization 
in the Northwestern States. It would have at once been re- 
duced to a mere handful of abolition fanatics, who by educa- 
tion, as well as natural tastes, habits, and associations, will al- 
ways cling to the theory that the only way of elevating the 
negro is by removing every law, custom, or other hinderance 
to the degradation of the white man to the level of the negro. 
The thousands who had by their votes, during the previous 
three years, given a consequence and a power to the Repub- 
lican party, because of a sincere belief that the policy of the 
Democratic party had been and would continue to be shaped 
and changed to promote the ends and purposes of the South 
as opposed to those of the North, upon the official declaration 
by the President that he would not sanction or approve of 



384 LIFE OF. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

fraud, nor consent to a violation of the leading princijDle to 
which he owed his own election, even to secure the admission 
of another slave state, would have abandoned the Republican 
party and rallied under the Democratic flag, haviug no longer 
any doubt of the honesty of their party. But no such course 
was pursued by the President. He did give his official ap- 
proval to the result of fraud ; he did give his executive recom- 
mendation to the completion of the violation of the Cincinnati 
platform by the admission of a state under a Constitution to 
which the people were not only no party, but which had been 
kept from them because it was known they would repudiate 
it. Hence these men, instead of being restored to the Demo- 
cratic party by a prompt vindication of its honesty and devo- 
tion to principle, were repelled, and confirmed in their impres- 
sion that the Democratic party had but one principle, and that 
was to promote the ends of slavery. The golden opportunity 
of putting an end to an organization which, in the hands of the 
unprincipled managers who have heretofore and ever will con- 
trol its movements, must be dangerous to the peace and pros- 
perity of the nation and to the supremacy of the Constitution, 
was neglected and lost. The subsequent action of Congress, 
of the executive and his cabinet, and of some of the Northern 
representatives of the Democracy, supplied the Republicans 
with sufficient proof to enable them to argue with plausibility 
that the Democratic party was one devoted to the interests of 
the slaveholding population of the Southern States. 

The annual message of Mr. Buchanan f in which he formally 
proclaimed his approval of Lecomptonism, was received with a 
most depressing effect upon the party in Blinois. Though he 
had never been the choice of the party in Blinois, yet, on ac- 
count of his advanced age, and the fact that he must have felt 
how many risks the party had always undertaken in advancing 
him from one high position to another, despite the absence of 
all personal popularity on his part, and want of striking quali- 
ties in his character, Democrats in the West entertained that 
respect for him which years and long service always excite in 
the breasts of an intelligent and refined people. While they 
deplored what they could not but regard as a great error, 
viewed as a matter of governmental as well as party policy, 
yet no word of unkindness or reproach was uttered. The mes- 
sage was published in all the papers of the state ; and while the. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 385 

Republicans were jubilant over it, the Democratic papers pub- 
lished it silently — one only, a weekly paper, edited by a federal 
office-holder, venturing very slight approval of it. The subse- 
quent messages of the President, both by their manner as well 
as by their language — the very stupid exhibition of ill-conceal- 
ed venom by Mr. Bigler, in his speech, which was represented 
as being an authorized exj:>ression of the views of the adminis- 
tration, and the Quixotical effort of Dr. Fitch to read Douglas 
and all who thought with him out of the party — could not fail 
to modify very greatly the personal interest previously enter- 
tained by the Democracy in the venerable President. The de- 
bates in Congress and the proceedings there have already been 
spoken of in these pages, and it will only be necessary to refer 
to them now as explaining proceedings in the state. On a 
previous page will be found some notice of a meeting held in 
Chicago in December responsive to the speech of Douglas in 
the Senate on the 9th of December. The names mentioned in 
those proceedings are of some moment, not because of any con- 
sequence attaching personally to the individuals, but as illus- 
trating the depths to which rancorous enmity stooped for the 
selection of fitting instruments to accomplish its ends. 

The resolutions of that meeting were reported by a commit- 
tee consisting of the following persons : Thomas Hoyne, ex- 
United States Attorney ; Iram Nye, ex-United States Marshal; 
Isaac Cook, ex-United States Postmaster ; Brock M'Vickar, 
Surgeon United States Marine Hospital ; William Price, post- 
master ; Thomas Dyer, B. F. Bradley, and H. D. Colvin. 

The chairman of the meeting was Dr. Daniel Brainard, ex- 
Surgeon to the United States Marine Hospital, who appointed 
this committee, and who gave as his reason for placing upon 
it the federal officers appointed by Mr. Buchanan, as well as 
those who had been removed, that it was right that the admin- 
istration should know and be made to feel that no Democrat 
in Chicago, in office or out of it, could permit so gross a viola- 
tion of the principles of the party to pass without expressing 
in the strongest terms a reprobation of the act. The meeting 
was addressed by Dr. Brainard and others ; their speeches were 
not published, because the friends of Mr. Douglas and those 
who really desired harmony in the party thought that, if peace 
and harmony were to be restored, it could be better accom- 
plished by suppressing the fierce invectives employed, and 

R 



386 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

swooping denunciations, not only of Lecomptonism, but of its 
supporters. Had these speeches boon preserved, it would be 
refreshing at this time to road how Mr. Bigler was denounced 
as an overgrown dunce, and Dr. Fitch as a bogus senator 
whoso Pomeroy Letter* ought to have consigned him to a po- 
litical oblivion so profound that not even a Lecompton Conven- 
tion could resuscitate his memory. 

The President subsequently appointed Messrs. Hoyne, Nye, 
Brainard, and Cook to office, they having become opponents of 
Douglas and supporters of Lecomptonism. 

In February, Cook, one of the above-named committee, pro- 
ceeded to Washington, and was nominated to the Senate as 
postmaster ; ho was then a defaulter to the government in a 

* As Dr. Fitch, of Indiana, was one of the " foreign" disturbers in the Illi- 
nois contest, and as he was generally styled on the stump " Pomeroy Fitch," 
it mav not be out of place to state why he was so called. At one time he 
was nominated for Congress in Indiana by the Democracy, whose platform 
was the Nicholson Letter. Just previous to the election, some Abolitionists 
in the district, not satisfied with the Whig nominee, addressed a letter to 
Fitch, propounding questions to him, to which Fitch replied : his reply se- 
cured the Abolition vote. The correspondence was secret, and not known to 
the Democracy until too late to take action upon it. The correspondence on 
the part of the Abolitionists was conducted by Mr. Pomeroy. "We give the 
letters without comment, except to say that Dr. Fitch very honorably kept all 
his pledges to Mr. Pomeroy, as will be seen by reference to the journals of 
the House of Representatives at the time. 

" Plymouth, August 4, 1S49. 

m g IR) — As there are a few who think you have not been quite definite 
enough on some of the questions involved in the present canvass, I wish you 
to answer the following questions, to wit : 

" 1. Will you, if elected, vote for the unconditional repeal of slavery in 
the District of Columbia ? 

" 2. Will you vote for the abolition of the inter-state slave-trade? 

" 3. Will you vote for the Wilmot Proviso being extended over the Terri- 
tories of California and New Mexico, and against any law authorizing slaves 
to be taken there as property ? 

" Please answer the above questions yes or no, without comment. 

11 Grove Pomeroy." 

The Ansicer. 
"With pleasure I answer 'yes' to the above questions. 
"Entertaining the views indicated in my answer above, I shall not only 
vote ' yes' on these measures, but if no older or abler member, whose influence 
would be greater than mine, introduce them into Congress, I shall do it my- 
self, if I have the honor of holding a seat there. 

"G.N. Fitch." 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 387 

very large sum, but nevertheless his confirmation was forced 
through the Senate — senators of honorable name and distinc- 
tion uniting in the action. The nomination was not confirmed 
without opposition, and that, too, of the most determined char- 
acter ; the result was that Cook was not confirmed until after 
the first of March. In the mean time, while this unheard-of 
proscription was going on at Washington, letters from cabinet 
officers and senators were flooding the mails, all tendering 
office, profit, and honors to such of the gallant Democracy of 
Illinois as would abandon the principles of the party and take 
up the banner of hostility to Douglas. In more than one let- 
ter, and by more than one of these men who thus wrote in be- 
half of the President, it was suggested that as the President 
was too old to attend to business personally, particularly the 
distribution of patronage, the rewarding of friends would be 
the especial duty of the gentlemen to whom had been commit- 
ted that business. It need not be stated that these letters 
were from presidential aspirants, some in Congress and some 
in the cabinet. It is with no pleasure that these, as well as 
other equally disgraceful proceedings on the part ,of " distin- 
guished" men in the councils of the nation, are recorded here. 
We have abstained from giving names, because to do so would 
be to single out individuals and hold them up to scorn and 
contempt, when, in truth and in fact, they acted, so far as the 
attempt to corrupt the people, as the authorized exponents of 
a new and fatal policy which had been adopted for the purpose 
of defeating Stephen A. Douglas. The result of this species 
of attempted corruption was soon apparent. A prominent in- 
dividual residing in Illinois, who perhaps had just received a 
letter from a member of the cabinet suggesting the importance 
of sustaining the administration and of defeating Douglas, and 
intimating that the administration would cheerfully bestow its 
best offices upon those who would aid in accomplishing these 
ends, while the writer, who already had the confident assur- 
ances of a majority in the Charleston Convention, would not 
fail to have a particular regard now and hereafter for the per- 
son who would publicly avow a hostility to Douglas, would be 
startled by receiving next day a letter of the same import from 
a senator, and, before the week was out, would possibly have 
on his table four or five letters from as many " distinguished 
Democrats," all praying the defeat of Douglas, and each con- 



388 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

eluding with the suggestion that the writer had already re- 
ceived promises sufficient to justify him in expecting the nom- 
ination at Charleston ! The effect of such a course of action 
on the part of those who had taken the cause of the adminis- 
tration in hand was, as might be expected, entirely fatal. The 
work was overdone. There were too many engaged in it. 
No intelligent man who received such letters could have the 
slightest respect for the writers, or could place the least faith 
in any thing they said. 

Before Cook's confirmation, the Illinois Democratic State 
Central Committee issued the call for the Democratic State 
Convention to nominate state officers. The call was signed by 
the Hon. Alexander Staene, of Pike County, as chairman, 
and was approved by all the members of the committee. It 
apportioned the number of votes which each county would 
be entitled to in convention, the number being based, accord- 
ing to custom, upon the Democratic vote at the previous pres- 
idential election. Counties were authorized, of course, to send 
as many delegates as they chose, but the number of votes 
which each county would be entitled to was fixed. The con- 
vention was called to meet at Springfield, in the State-house, at 
ten o'clock A.M., April 21st. It has been stated that this con- 
vention was called at an unusually early day ; but, by reference 
to a table published elsewhere in this volume, it will be seen 
that, with one exception, it was held later than any preceding 
Democratic State Convention ever held in Illinois. The excep- 
tion was in 1856, when the convention was held on the first 
of May. The day after copies of this call reached Washing- 
ton, Cook's nomination was confirmed ; longer delay was 
thought dangerous to the score of embryo presidents to whom 
had been pledged the eleven votes of Illinois at the Charleston 
Convention. He hurried home, and on the 1 1th of March as- 
sumed the duties of postmaster. He immediately turned out 
a number of competent, worthy men, and filled their places 
with individuals who had recommendations signed by Fitch, 
Bright, Cobb, Slidell, and other very excellent statesmen of 
that class. The best comment upon these appointments is the 
one furnished by time ; two or three of them have since been 
sent to the Penitentiary, a few others are fugitives from justice, 
others have been removed by order of the Department, and oth- 
ers have sought safety and peace by voluntary resignation. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 389 

The administration had now a representative in Illinois, and 
if there was a disposition on the part of any one to reflect dis- 
respectfully upon the Chicago postmaster or the policy of the 
administration, it might be said with great truth that that pol- 
icy and its representative were eminently worthy of each other. 
This representative of the administration, being himself illit- 
erate, selected from a brothel in Chicago a clerk, through 
whose penmanship the Chicago postmaster undertook, in the 
name and by the authority of the President of the United 
States, and of several members of his cabinet, to corrupt the 
Democracy of the state. As the personal and official character 
of the postmaster of Chicago is of itself not of sufficient im- 
portance to require more than a passing notice, even of its in- 
famy, yet as, with a full knowledge of the man, the administra- 
tion chose to place its character and fortunes in Illinois in his 
hands, there is no escape from the disagreeable task of record- 
ing a few particulars of the joint movements of principal and 
agent at that time. At Chatham, in Sangamon County, one 
"N. S. Wright had been postmaster, and, up to the period of 
Cook's appointment to office, had been an ardent supporter of 
Douglas. By some means — possibly at a personal interview — 
this man, Wright's, ambition or cupidity had been excited by 
a suggestion that he ought to be the postmaster at Springfield. 
That he had been in correspondence with Cook upon the sub- 
ject is evident, for upon the eighth of April Cook addressed 
him a letter, warning him that it was the intention of the 
friends of Mr. Buchanan to get up a new organization in the 
state ; that he, Wright, was expected to secure the election of 
anti-Douglas delegates to the state convention, but, if defeated 
in that, he was, by all means, to get up a new delegation. The 
letter closed with a suggestion that the business of appointing 
a new postmaster at Springfield would be settled at the meet- 
ing of the convention. 

It will be seen by the above letter that the administration, 
through its agent, declared, in advance of the state convention, 
the purpose of reorganizing the Democracy of Illinois, and in- 
structed the federal officer in that quarter that if he, the fed- 
eral officer, was beaten in the choice of delegates at the regu- 
lar Democratic county convention, "by all means to get up 
another delegation." This letter, owing to the stupidity of 
some one connected with the Chicago Post-office, never got 



390 LITE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

into the mail, but reached Mr. Wright through the columns 
of the newspapers, into which it found its way. Mr. Wright 
was beaten at the county convention, he being at that time 
the solitary Lecomptonite in the county ; but he " got up a 
new delegation" on paper by putting down the names of 
twelve postmasters who would not, as he supposed, dare to 
say nay to any act done by order of the administration. Sim- 
ilar letters were sent all over the state; and the efforts of 
politicians in other states to sow discord and promote differ- 
ences were unremitting. There were one hundred counties in 
the state; in ninety-eight of these the county conventions 
passed resolutions sustaining the course of Douglas, Harris, 
Marshall, Morris, Shaw, and Smith, the Democratic delega- 
tion in Congress. In one county resolutions approving of the 
proposed admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion were passed. In the other county, the call for a meeting 
of the county convention was never published, but a few days 
before the time fixed for the state convention the chairman of 
the county committee held a private meeting in his own office, 
and appointed himself and some friends as delegates to the 
state convention. In Lake County there were two or three 
candidates for the "Waukegan Post-office : these candidates had 
been incited " to defeat Douglas" as the surest road to federal 
profit and honor. When the county convention met the at- 
tendance was full, every township being represented. The 
candidates for the post-office were on hand with their resolu- 
tions ; but the incumbent of the post-office entered the con- 
vention, and, in person or by another, submitted anti-Lecomp- 
ton resolutions. Such doctrines, coming from such a quarter, 
were hailed by the Democracy with delight; the candidates 
for the post-office were voted down almost unanimously, and 
the Waukegan postmaster had every thing his own way. In 
the midst of the enthusiasm he proposed a list of delegates, 
he being one ; the convention adopted the list without ques- 
tion, and adjourned with cheers for Douglas, and Harris, and 
their Illinois associates in Congress. The Waukegan post- 
master had outwitted his rivals and cheated the convention. 
In Cook County the Democratic county convention met, and 
appointed its delegates, at the head of whom was Dr. Daniel 
Brainard; the resolutions of the convention were strong and 
decided. The Chicago postmaster did not even attempt to 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 391 

compete at the convention for the delegation, but called a con- 
vention of his own, and appointed " a new delegation." 

On the 21st of April Springfield was filled With delegates. 
Never before in the history of the Democratic party had there 
been the slightest attempt to get up division ; the subject of 
contested seats on an extensive scale was a new one in an Illi- 
nois state convention. For more than twenty years these 
conventions had been held with the greatest harmony. Now, 
for the first time, there was an appearance of a storm. The 
Cook County (Chicago) delegation, the largest in the state, 
having thirty-six votes, were called together early in the morn- 
ing to take preliminary steps to meet the contestants before 
the state convention ; Dr. Brainard was, at his own sugges- 
tion, appointed to argue and defend the right of the " regu- 
lars" to seats in the convention, and to expose the utter ille- 
gality and absurdity of whatever pretense Cook and his asso- 
ciates might set up to membership. As the hour approached 
for the meeting of the convention, the representative hall be- 
came crowded. Delegation after delegation entered and took 
the seats assigned them by the state committee ; the hands on 
the clock pointed to five minutes before ten, and still not one 
of the men who were to contest the seats in the convention 
had made his appearance. As the clock struck ten, Mr. Starne, 
chairman of the state committee, called the convention to 
order, and, on motion, the Hon. John Moore was appointed 
temporary chairman. The convention was further temporarily 
organized by the appointment of secretaries. 

The Hon. Samuel Holmes, of Adams, moved the appoint- 
ment of a committee to examine the credentials of delegates, 
and to report to the convention a list of the legally elected 
delegates, and that said committee consist of one member from 
each congressional district and two from the state at large. 

Hon. John A. M'Clernand requested the gentleman from 
Adams to modify his motion so as that it would be in the fol- 
lowing form : 

Whereas, it is understood that there are contesting dele- 
gates from one or more counties to this convention, and where- 
as practice and fairness require that all questions affecting the 
titles of claimants to seats in this convention should be settled 
before the convention proceeds to effect a permanent organi- 
zation; therefore, 



392 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Resolved^ That the temporary chairman of the convention 
appoint a committee of eleven on the credentials of members 
that are contested, and that the members will entertain no 
proposition and do no business until the report of said com- 
mittee shall have been acted upon by the convention ; and that, 
until otherwise ordered, the rules of the last House of Repre- 
sentatives of this state be the rules for the government of this 
convention. 

Mr. Holmes accepting this as a substitute for his motion, the 
preamble and resolution were adopted. 

The president appointed as the committee the following per- 
sons : Hon. Sam. Holmes, of Adams; Hon. James Mitchell, of 
Stephenson ; Hon. S. S. Hayes, of Cook ; Hon. John A. M'Cler- 
nand, of Sangamon ; Hon. W. C. Gondy, of Fulton ; Hon. U. F. 
Linder, of Coles ; Hon. Zadoc Casey, of Jefferson ; Hon. W. J. 
Allen, of Williamson; Hon. W.H.Roosevelt, of Hancock; Gov. 
J. A. Matteson, of Sangamon ; and F. Goodspeed, Esq., of Will. 

The secretary called the list of counties in alphabetical or- 
der, and it was found that all the counties in the state except 
Lake and Union were represented, and represented each by 
one delegation. When all the credentials had been handed in, 
and the Committee on Credentials were about to retire, Mr. 
Holmes rose and said : 

" The Committee on Credentials are about to retire to the 
adjoining room to examine the certificates of all persons claim- 
ing seats in the Illinois Democratic State Convention of 1858, 
and if there are any persons claiming seats in such convention 
who have not yet presented their claims, they are hereby no- 
tified to make known their claims without delay, or hold their 
peace forever." 

Not a contestant appeared then or at any time during the 
session of the convention. In fact, so bald and fabulous was 
the pretense of the new delegation, " got up" under the instruc* 
tions of the administration, that not even a federal office-hold- 
er could command sufficient impudence to lay claim to a seat 
in the convention. The entire number of persons present at 
Springfield whose names were used by the administration as 
delegates to a " National Democratic State Convention" was 
thirty-nine, of which some twenty-three were from Chicago. 
These met in the Senate Chamber, and never claimed seats in 
the state convention, but declared themselves a convention un- 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 393 

der the new organization mentioned in Cook's letter to 
Wright. This meeting of the " new delegations" of the ad- 
ministration, or, as they were at the time jocularly styled, the 
" Thirty-nine Articles" of Lecomptonism, having no instruc- 
tions from Washington as to what they should do, except the 
general one to " defeat Douglas," passed some resolutions de- 
claring that the state convention had been held too soon, and 
adjourned till June, in order "to give the Democracy time to 
turn out." 

The state convention was in many respects the greatest ever 
held in the State of Illinois. The names of many of the dele- 
gates had long previously been familiar to the party and to 
the country. 

The Committee on Resolutions consisted of the following 
persons, one being selected from each congressional district 
and two from the state at large : Gov. Joel A. Matteson ; John 
D. Crouch, of Jo Daviess ; Richard T. Merrick, of Cook ; John 
Hise, of La Salle; John M'Donald, of Peoria ; James M. Camp- 
bell, of M'Donough ; John A. M'Clernand, of Sangamon ; Za- 
doc Casey, of Jefferson ; J. S. Post, of Macon ; S. A. Buckmas- 
ter, of Madison ; J. S. Robinson, of White. 

An abler committee never was appointed by any state con- 
vention. The members were all men of standing, and most 
of them had occupied positions under the state and federal 
governments. Mr. M'Clernand had represented one of the dis- 
tricts in Congress during many years, and until he declined a 
re-election. John Hise was known all over the state for his 
long and able services in the Legislature. Mr. Casey had been 
lieutenant governor and member of Congress for many years. 
Messrs. Crouch and M'Donald were experienced editors ; Buck- 
master, Campbell, and Post were men of sterling Democracy, 
and known to the central portions of the state as unfaltering 
supporters of Democratic principles. Mr. Merrick had been 
an Old Line Whig, who, in the disruption of that party, had 
united in 1856 with the Democracy, and had rendered earnest 
and vigorous aid in the election of Mr. Buchanan. 

The convention nominated W. B. Fondey and Hon. A. C. 
French, the former for state treasurer, and the latter for super- 
intendent of public instruction. 

The committee on resolutions, through the Hon. John A. 
M'Clernand, reported the following resolutions, which were 

R2 



394 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

■ 

read, and the question having been taken upon each resolution 
as it was read, and then upon the whole, they were adopted 
without one dissenting voice, and with an enthusiasm that was 
extraordinary even in conventions of the Democracy of Illinois. 

Resolved, That the Democratic party of the State of Illinois, through their 
delegates in general convention assembled, do reassert and declare the prin- 
ciples avowed by them as when, on former occasions, they have presented 
their candidates for popular suffrage. 

Resolved, That they are unalterably attached to, and will maintain invio- 
late, the principles declared by the National Convention at Cincinnati in 
June, 1856. 

Resolved, That they avow, with renewed energy, their devotion to the fed- 
eral Union of the United States, their earnest desire to avert sectional strife, 
their determination to maintain the sovereignty of the states, and to protect 
every state, and the people thereof, in all their constitutional rights. 

Resolved, That the platform of principles established by the National 
Democratic Convention at Cincinnati is the only authoritative exposition of 
Democratic doctrine, and they deny the right of any power on earth, except 
a like body, to change or interpolate that platform, or to prescribe new or 
different tests ; that they will neither do it themselves, nor permit it to be 
done by others, but will recognize all men as Democrats who stand by and 
uphold Democratic principles. 

Resolved, That in the organization of states, the people have a right to de- 
cide at the polls upon the character of their fundamental law, and that the 
experience of the past year has conclusively demonstrated the wisdom and 
propriety of the principle that the fundamental law under which a Territory 
seeks admission into the Union should be submitted to the people of such 
Territory for their ratification or rejection at a fair election, to be held for 
that purpose ; and that before such Territory is admitted as a state, such 
fundamental law should receive a majority of the legal votes cast at such elec- 
tion ; and they deny the right and condemn the attempt of any convention 
called for the purpose of framing a Constitution, to impose the instrument 
formed by them upon the people against their will. 

Resolved, That a fair application of these principles requires that the Le- 
compton Constitution should be submitted to a direct vote of the actual in- 
habitants of Kansas, so that they may vote for or against that instrument be- 
fore Kansas shall be declared one of the states of this Union ; and until it 
shall be ratified by the people of Kansas at a fair election held for that pur- 
pose, the Illinois Democracy are unalterably opposed to the admission of 
Kansas under that Constitution. 

Resolved, That we heartily approve and sustain the manly, firm, patriotic, 
and Democratic position of Stephen A. Douglas, Isaac N. Morris, Thomas 
L. Harris, Aaron Shaw, Robert Smith, and Samuel S. Marshall, the Demo- 
cratic delegation of Illinois in Congress, upon the question of the admission 
of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution ; and that by their firm and 
uncompromising devotion to the Democratic principles, and to the cause of 
justice, right, and the people, they have deserved our admiration, increased, 
if possible, our confidence in their integrity and patriotism, and merited our 
warm approbation, our sincere and hearty thanks, and shall receive our earn- 
est support. 

Resolved, That in all things wherein the national administration sustain 
and carry out the principles of the Democratic party as expressed in the Cin- 
cinnati platform and affirmed in these resolutions, it is entitled to and will 
receive our hearty support. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 395 

The probability of the reassembling of the Danite meeting 
was a subject of much discussion. Hundreds of Democrats 
who had agreed with Mr. Buchanan upon the subject of Le- 
compton expressed the earnest hope that the ill-advised move- 
ment to divide the Democracy would receive no farther coun- 
tenance from the President. At this time, too, the House of 
Representatives adopted the English amendment, and in a few 
days thereafter the Senate concurred. Lecomptonism was at 
an end. The question of the admission of Kansas with the 
Lecompton Constitution was referred to the people of Kansas. 
The struggle was over. Both sides claimed a victory. The 
advocates of the admission of Kansas with the Lecompton 
Constitution had all voted to remand the issue of the admis- 
sion of the state with that Constitution to the people of Kan- 
sas for their decision at the polls. It is true they did not sub- 
mit the approval or disapproval of the Constitution directly to 
a vote of the people, but they did submit to the people of 
Kansas a question, in voting on which they were practically 
to decide whether they were willing to be admitted as a state 
with Lecompton, or remain a Territory without it. 

Many of the opponents of the admission of Kansas with the 
Lecompton Constitution voted for the English Bill, because 
they thought it accomplished the same result that would have 
been accomplished had the Constitution been submitted di- 
rectly to the people for ratification or rejection. Those Anti- 
Lecompton men who voted against the English Bill claimed a 
practical victory, though they could not consistently vote to 
admit Kansas with that Constitution without a direct vote ap- 
proving it. There was really, then, not the slightest justifica- 
tion for continuing the proscription of Democrats for having 
agreed with Judge Douglas. But the official axe was not idle. 
It was wielded in all the departments of the government. 
Nor was it confined to Illinois. Postmasters were cut down 
with a suddenness that was intended to be terrifying; mail 
agents were dismissed a service that was thereafter to be de- 
voted to the especial aid of Republicanism. 

The secretary of the treasury struck clown the venerable Ja- 
cob Fry, collector of Chicago, who for forty years had been 
an active Democrat, and had never sullied his own name, nor 
that of his party, by any act, personal or official, that was un- 
worthy a gentleman. The same secretary continued in office 



396 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

a man who had violated every law recognized by the govern- 
ment or by society for the regulation of official or personal 
honesty. 

The war was continued. Francis J. Grund, " the basest Hes- 
sian of them all," was dispatched to Chicago. He was the 
mouthpiece — and a fitting one — through which despotism 
spoke its decrees to its cringing servitors in Illinois. The 
Danite Convention was officially called to meet again at Spring- 
field. Grund was a delegate. Dr. Brainard, having in the 
mean time made arrangements with Grund for the place of 
surgeon to the Marine Hospital, was also made a delegate. O. 
C. Skinner, who had been an active member of the Democratic 
State Convention, and who had moved the adoption of the res- 
olutions without the change of a word, was also a delegate. 
The promises of office had been cast far and wide over the 
state, and, strange to relate, almost every man who had aban- 
doned General Cass and supported the Buffalo platform in 
1848 now rallied at the Danite call to defeat Douglas on a sus- 
picion of Free-soilism ! The convention was held. The pro- 
ceedings were boisterous. The principal operators were Grund, 
Lieb, Carpenter, and Pine ; the resolutions, which were of the 
most denunciatory character, were reported by Carpenter. 
"What has become of those men can be ascertained upon appli- 
cation to Howell Cobb or Attorney General Black. With the 
exception of Lieb, who is now a Republican, they have all left 
the State of Illinois. "Why they have done so let the govern- 
ment that clothed them with official patronage and power an- 
swer. 

The effort to compel the attendance of postmasters by threats 
of removal failed. It is true that the names of many postmas- 
ters were published as delegates, but not one in a hundred 
paid the slightest attention to the matter. The " delegates" 
consisted principally of men who hoped for office. Nine of 
the " most eminent" men in the convention subsequently were 
candidates for Congress in their respective districts, and the 
manner in which their eminent abilities and their perfidy to the 
Democratic party were appreciated can be seen by the record 
of the votes at the election. At this time more than one mem- 
ber of the cabinet was at work denouncing Douglas and urging 
his defeat. The issue was well known. It was Douglas or 
Lincoln — a Democrat or a Republican. Yet the defeat of 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 397 

Douglas was demanded. The Danite convention adjourned 
on the 9th of June, having nominated John Dougherty and 
John Reynolds in opposition to Fondey and French. Let it 
always be remembered that this proceeding took place at the 
express desire of the administration, and after the passage of 
the English Bill, and before Mr. Douglas's return to Illinois 
from Congress. It was designed deliberately to defeat the 
Democratic state ticket, and to defeat all the Democratic nom- 
inees for Congress and for the Legislature. 

On the 16th of June the Republican state convention as- 
sembled at Springfield, and put in nomination Abraham Lin- 
coln for the United States Senate, and on the same day Dr. 
Fitch telegraphed to the faithful at Chicago that the removal 
of the venerable General Fry had been consummated by the 
confirmation of Mr. Strother as collector of Chicago. 

On the same day the special session of the Senate closed its 
business and adjourned. A few days thereafter, Senator Doug- 
las, accompanied by his family, left Washington via Philadel- 
phia and New York for Chicago. 

From a list prepared at that time of the Democratic papers 
published in Illinois, it was found that there were sixty-nine 
supporting the regular party organization, and five supporting 
the Danite ticket. Of these five, two were new papers com- 
menced after the entanglement. One other was published by 
a postmaster, who, as late as January preceding, had " dared" 
the administration to remove him for denouncing " Lecompton 
as a fraud," or for supporting Douglas ; but, having become a 
defaulter as postmaster, was then confidently expecting a high- 
er office, which he ultimately attained, but which he has since 
vacated for cause. Another had changed its politics in con- 
sideration of a post-office advertisement for which the govern- 
ment paid $417. The other, edited by a postmaster, had al- 
ways been Lecompton. Any one not blinded by hatred would 
have been able to judge by these indications the tide of Dem- 
ocratic sentiment in Illinois. In vain were the facts presented 
to the administration. They would listen to no reason. It 
seemed as if the whole power of the administration had been 
surrendered to the control of those presidential aspirants, who 
sought in the defeat of Douglas the removal of what they re- 
garded the only person standing between them and the object 
of their ambition. 



398 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

On the 9th of July Senator Douglas arrived in Chicago. 
The circumstances attending his arrival were of such a charac- 
ter as to deserve more than a passing notice. It was an era 
in his history. It was the third occasion of his return to the 
city after having taken part in exciting national controversies 
in Congress. In 1850, after the passage of the compromise 
measures, he was met by a violent armed mob ; but, by the 
power of a single speech, he had conquered and subdued that 
mob. In 1854, after the passage of the Nebraska Bill, he was 
again met by an armed mob, who, remembering the result in 
1850 of allowing him to speak to the people, refused to let him 
be heard, and, after several hours' struggle, forced him to leave 
the meeting. 

And now, after another interval of four years, he again re- 
turned to Chicago, from a session during which he had been 
the object of an assault more fearful than he had ever before 
encountered. The events of that night were so remarkable 
that an account of them, published in the Chicago Times the 
morning after, will not prove uninteresting : 

" Yesterday Senator Douglas was received in Chicago, and the occasion, as 
•well as the manner of that reception, was of the most magnificent character. 
Some few days ago it was heard that he was at Cleveland, and forthwith ar- 
rangements were hastily made to give him a reception worthy of his great 
services. With that view it was determined to appoint a committee to meet 
him at Michigan City, and escort him to the city. The committee was ap- 
pointed. 

DEPARTURE OP THE COMMITTEE. 

"As per announcement in the programme of the reception of Hon. Ste- 
phen A. Douglas, published by authority of the Committee of Arrange- 
ments, an extra train of ears was ready at 1 o'clock yesterday to convey the 
Committee of Reception to Michigan City, distant from Chicago sixty miles, 
at which place Senator Douglas was to take the Michigan Central road on the 
return trip. It was not contemplated, either by the committee or any one else, 
that many persons, besides such as were on the committee, would desire to go 
that distance in the middle of an intensely hot day, over a sandy and exposed 
road, and accordingly no effort was made to make up a long train. But full 
half an hour before the time of starting, hundreds of citizens, many of whom 
came from remote parts of the state, had collected at the depot. We noticed 
several stanch Democrats who had come up from the extreme southern sec- 
tion — from Egypt — and still others from the central sections ; indeed, there 
were delegations here from almost every county in Illinois. While the crowd 
was gathering, fine bands of music were employed, which, by their inspiriting 
strains, helped to awaken the most general and intense enthusiasm. In the 
mean time, also, a great number of large national flags were elevated at 
conspicuous points near the depot and elsewhere, and banners of different 
shapes and colors, besides streamers, pendents, etc., were disposed in all di- 
rections. A grand sight it was ! All present partook largely of the spirit 
which inspired to the work of love and patriotism. It was the deliberate 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 399 

preparation of the Democratic citizens of Chicago for the brilliant reception 
of Stephen A. Douglas — of the man, the noble, devoted man, who has at 
this time more of the confidence and affection of the people of Illinois and of 
the Union than any other man who can be named. 

"It was now 1 o'clock. The train was to start at that hour, and all things 
being ready, the cars moved off amid shouts from the outside, and answering 
shouts and music from within. In all, the company numbered four hundred. 
A splendid banner, that of the Young Men's Democratic Club, was carried 
upon the locomotive. 

"Was there ever in this country, whose people are proverbially parsi- 
monious of public attention, a greater tribute given to any- man? Four 
hundred strong, leading citizens of the state going sixty miles in a melting 
day to meet a fellow-citizen ! And it should be observed that many of this 
great company came from places distant, some fifty, others one hundred, and 
still others one hundred and fifty, and even two hundred miles. They came 
to meet Senator Douglas, to take his true hand in theirs, and to tell him 
that they and the masses of people in Illinois confide in his great ability, ad- 
mire the brave consistency of his course, and will sustain him at the ballot- 
boxes. 

"The train proceeded to Michigan City, where it was met by a host of gal- 
lant Indianians, who accompanied the judge from Laporte to Michigan City. 
Some malicious person having secretly spiked the only gun of the town, the 
Democracy obtained a large anvil, and placing it in the middle of the prin- 
cipal street, made the welkin echo with its repeated discharges. 

"The delegation from Chicago, including Democrats from Logan, Peoria, 
Tazewell, La Salle, Marshall, M 'Henry, Knox, Will, Boone, Kankakee, 
Champaign, Stephenson, Kane, De Kalb, Du Page, and other counties of the 
state, formed into line, and, preceded by a band of music, marched to the 
Tremont House, where they met Senator Douglas. After exchanging per- 
sonal salutations with his friends, Judge Douglas returned, in a few happy 
remarks, his thanks for this marked expression of their continued friendship. 

THE RETURN TO THE CITY. 

" At a few minutes after five o'clock the procession was formed and pro- 
ceeded to the depot, Judge Douglas being now the guest of the committee. 
The train soon started, and all along the road — at every station, at almost 
every farm-house and laborer's cabin — in every corn-field, and at every point 
where laborers were engaged — there was exhibited by cheers, by waving of 
handkerchiefs and other demonstrations, that cordial ' welcome home' to the 
great representative of popular rights. 

"At the outer depot of the Illinois Central Railroad the national flag had 
been raised by the operatives, and a swivel belched forth its roaring notes of 
welcome. The hardy hands of the mechanics resounded with applause, and 
cheers and huzzas continued until the train had passed on to the city. 

"As the train passed along from Twelfth Street to the depot, crowds of 
ladies were assembled on the door-steps of the residences on Michigan Ave- 
nue, waving banners and handkerchiefs ; the Lake Park was crowded by per- 
sons hastily proceeding to the depot. Long before the train could enter the 
station-house, thousands had crossed over the breakwater, got upon the track, 
and climbed into the cars, and when the latter reached the depot they were 
literally crammed inside and covered on top by ardent and enthusiastic friends 
and supporters of the illustrious Illinoisian. 

"Capt. Smith's artillery were, in the mean time, firing from Dearborn 
Park a salute of 150 guns (guns were also firing in the West and North Di- 
visions), the booming of the cannon alone rising above the cheering plaudits 
of the assembled multitude. 



400 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

"The hotels and principal buildings of the city were adorned with flags. 
The Adams House, near the Central depot, was most handsomely decorated. 
The national flag, a banner bearing the motto ' Douglas, the champion of 
Popular Sovereignty,' as well as numerous flags belonging to vessels in the 
harbor, were suspended across the street, presenting a grand display. The 
doors, windows, balconies, and roofs of the Adams House, as well as the 
private residences in the neighborhood, and the large stores and warehouses 
along Lake Street, wei-e crowded with ladies and other persons, all cheering 
and welcoming the senator. At the depot, a procession, consisting of the 
'Montgomery Guards,' Capt. Gleeson, and the 'Emmett Guards,' Lieut. Stu- 
art commanding, acting as a military escort, was then formed. Judge Doug- 
las was in an open barouche drawn by six horses, and was followed by the 
Committee of Arrangements in other carriages. The procession proceeded 
up Lake to "Wabash Avenue, down Wabash Avenue to Washington Street, 
and thence by Dearborn Street to the Tremont House. 

"Throughout the whole route of the procession the senator was greeted 
from house-top and window, from street, from awning-post and balcony, by 
every demonstration of grateful welcome. 

THE SCENE AT THE TREMONT. 

" As early as half past six o'clock people began to collect around the Tre- 
mont House. The omnibuses from Union Park, and from the southern and 
northern limits of the city, were crowded with suburban residents, and peo- 
ple came on foot from the remotest parts of the city, taking up eligible stand- 
ing-places around the hotel. At about half past seven, the booming of can- 
non on the Lake shore having announced the arrival of the train, it was the 
signal for the assembling of thousands of others, who rapidly filled up every 
vacant spot in Lake Street, from State to Clark. Dearborn Street was also 
thronged from Water to Randolph. The area occupied by the people, pack- 
ed together in one dense mass, was considerably over Jifty thousand square feet. 
In addition to this, every window and roof within hearing distance was occu- 
pied, a large portion of the occupants being ladies. The assemblage of peo- 
ple who welcomed in vociferous and prolonged shouts of joy the return of 
Senator Douglas numbered at the least calculation thirty thousand. 

" Chicago has never before witnessed such a sight. A field of human 
forms parted with difficulty as the procession passed through, and closed in- 
stantly behind it, with the surge and roar of the waters of the sea; an ocean 
of upturned faces, extending beyond the farthest limits to which the senator's 
powerful voice could reach, from which broke one spontaneous burst of ap- 
plause as he appeared upon the balcony before them. Over all, the light of 
the illumination, and the glare and glitter of fireworks, spread an appear- 
ance which is indescribable. 

"The building just across the street from the Tremont, on Lake, occupied 
by Jno. Parmly, hat manufacturer, and others, was finely illuminated, and 
a handsome transparency was displayed, bearing the words, 'Welcome to 
Stephen A. Douglas, the Defender of Popular Sovereignty.' 

THE SPEECHES. 

" Charles Walker, Esq., then appeared on the Lake Street balcony, and in 
a very neat address welcomed Senator Douglas to his constituents from a 
prolonged but glorious struggle, in which he had defended and maintained 
the right. 

"Senator Douglas responded in a speech of over an hour, in which he 
reviewed the history of the past and the prospect of the future." 

Before giving the speech of Senator Douglas on this occa- 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 401 

sion, it should be stated that, on the evening of the 16th of 
June, when nominated as a candidate for the United States 
Senate, the Hon. Abraham Lincoln had addressed the Repub- 
lican State Convention in a carefully prepared speech. As Mr. 
Lincoln's speech constituted one of the leading subjects of the 
great contest that followed, justice to that gentleman, and jus- 
tice to the history of the memorable canvass, suggest that it 
should be here inserted. 

SPEECH OP MR. LINCOLN. 

On that evening Mr. Lincoln said : 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, — If we could first know 
where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do 
and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was in- 
itiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to 
slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not 
only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not 
cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A, house divided 
against itself can not stand." I believe this government can not endure per- 
manently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- 
solved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents 
of slavery will arrest the farther spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or 
its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the 
states, old as well as new — North as well as South. 

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? 

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete 
legal combination — piece of machinery so to speak — compounded of the Ne- 
braska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only 
what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also 
let him study the history of its construction, and trace if he can, or rather 
fail if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action among its 
chief architects from the beginning. 

The New-year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the 
states by state Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Con- 
gressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which end- 
ed in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the nation- 
al territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. 

But so far Congress only had acted ; and an endorsement by the people, 
real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and 
give chance for more. 

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well 
as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty, " otherwise 
called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though ex- 
pressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in 
this attempted use of it as to amount to just this : that if any one man choose 
to enslave another, no thh'd man shall be allowed to object. That argument 
was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself in the language which follows : 
" It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into 
any Territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people 
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 



402 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then 
opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty," and 
"sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let 
us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory 
may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and 
down they voted the amendment. 

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case involv- 
ing the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having volun- 
tarily taken him first into a free state and then into a Territory covered by 
the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in 
each, was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of Mis- 
souri, and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the 
same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was "Dred Scott," which 
name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the 
then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the 
Supreme Court of the United States ; but the decision of it was deferred un- 
til after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the 
floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to 
state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally ex- 
clude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers, " That is a question 
for the Supreme Court." 

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, 
such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The endorse- 
ment, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred 
thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satis- 
factory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively 
as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the en- 
dorsement. The Supreme Court met again ; did not announce their decis- 
ion, but ordered a re-argument. The presidential inauguration came, and 
still no decision of the court ; but the incoming President, in his inaugural 
address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, 
whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed 
author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this 
capital endorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all 
opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the 
Silliman Letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to ex- 
press his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained ! 

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of 
the Nebraska Bill on the mere question of/act whether the Lecompton Con- 
stitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas ; 
and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the 
people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I 
do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted 
down or voted up to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of 
the policy he would impress upon the public mind— the principle for which 
he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And 
well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may 
he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska 
doctrine. Under the dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted 
out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding— like the mould at 
the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand — helped 
to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint strug- 
gle with the Republicans against the Lecompton Constitution involves noth- 
ing of the original Nebraska doctrine. The struggle was made on a point, 
the right of a people to make their own Constitution, upon which he and the 
Republicans have never differed. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 403 

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator 
Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present 
state of advancement. The working points of that machinery are, 

First. That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descend- 
ant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any state, in the sense of that term 
as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in or- 
der to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provi- 
sion of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens of 
each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several states." 

Secondly. That, "subject to the Constitution of the United States, " neither 
Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United 
States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill 
up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and 
thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the 
future. 

Thirdly. That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state 
makes him free as against trfft holder, the United States Courts will not de- 
cide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro 
may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed im- 
mediately ; but if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently endorsed by the 
people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred 
Scott's master might do lawfully with Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, 
every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand 
slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state. 

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doc- 
trine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least 
Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted 
up. This shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we 
are tending. 

It will throw additional light on the latter to go back, and run the mind 
over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now 
appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. 
The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitu- 
tion." What the Constitution had to do with it outsiders could not then see. 
Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decis- 
ion to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be 
just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment expressly declaring the 
right of the people voted down ? Plainly enough now : the adoption of it 
would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the 
court decision held up ? Why even a senator's individual opinion withheld 
till after the presidential election ? Plainly enough now : the speaking out 
then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the elec- 
tion was to be earned. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the 
endorsement ? Wiry the delay of a re-argument ? Why the incoming Pres- 
ident's advance exhortation in favor of the decision ? These things look like 
the cautious patting aud petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting 
him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the 
hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others ? 

We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result 
of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions 
of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by 
different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and 
when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the 
frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and 
all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their 



404 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even 
scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame ex- 
actly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find 
it impossible not to believe that Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and James 
all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a com- 
mon plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. 

It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska Bill the people of a state 
as well as Territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the 
Constitution." Why mention a state ? They were legislating for Territo- 
ries, and not for or about states. Certainly the people of a state are and 
ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States ; but why is men- 
tion of this lugged into this merely Territorial law ? Why are the people of 
a Territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their re- 
lation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same ? While 
the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and 
the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the 
Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial 
Legislature to exclude slavery from any Un%d States Territory, they all 
omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the 
people of a state, to exclude it. Possibly this is a mere omission ; but who 
can be quite sure, if M 'Lean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a 
declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery 
from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration in 
behalf of the people of a Territory into the Nebraska Bill — I ask, who can 
be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it 
had been in the other ? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the 
power of a state over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it 
more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the 
Nebraska Act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases 
where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the 
law of the state is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." 
In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the United States 
Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question as to the 
restraint on the power of the Territories was left open in the Nebraska Act. 
Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we 
may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that 
the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slav- 
ery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of 
"care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the 
public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be main- 
tained when made. 

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all 
the states. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and 
will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall 
be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the 
people of Missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall 
awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave 
state. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now 
before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we 
have to do. How can we best do it ? 

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet Whis- 
per us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which 
to effect that object. They wish us to infer all from the fact that he now has 
a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty, and that he has regu- 
larly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never dif- 
fered. They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 405 

us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better 
than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at 
least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery ? 
He don't care any thing about it. His avowed mission is impressing the 
"public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic news- 
paper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of 
the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade 
is approaching ? He has not said so. Does he really think so ? But if it is, 
how can he resist it ? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of 
white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly 
show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought 
cheapest ? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than 
in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of 
slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and, as such, how can he oppose 
the foreign slave-trade — how can he refuse that trade in that "property" 
shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to the home pro- 
duction ? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, 
he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. 

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to- 
day than he was yesterday — that he may rightfully change when he finds 
himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he 
will make any particular change of which he himself has given no intimation ? 
Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as 
ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his mo- 
tives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if 
ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have 
assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious 
obstacle. But clearly he is not now with us — he does not pretend to be — he 
does not promise ever to be. 

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted 
friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work — who do 
care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered 
over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single im- 
pulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance 
against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered 
from the four winds, and formed and fought the battles through, under the 
constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we 
brave all then to falter now — now, when that same enemy is wavering, dis- 
severed, and belligerent ? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — 
if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistake 
delay it, but sooner or later the victory is sure to come. 

In this speech was proclaimed the doctrine of an " irrepres- 
sible conflict." Mr. Lincoln, it is true, did not declare it in 
that phrase, but he declared it in terms not less strong when 
he declared, 

" In my opinion, it (slavery agitation) will not cease until a 
crisis shall have been reached and passed. I believe this gov- 
ernment can not endure permanently half slave and half free. 
* * * It will become all one thing or the other." 

Mr. Seward, in his Rochester speech, expressed the same 
idea in more ornate terms, but not any more clearly or forcibly 
than it was expressed by Mr. Lincoln. And in a struggle be- 



406 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tween the originator and promulgator of that doctrine and 
the author of the Nebraska Bill, a Democratic federal admin- 
istration took sides openly, through its federal officers and 
through its official organ at Washington, against the Democ- 
racy of Illinois. 

In response to the cordial welcome given him by the mul- 
titude, Mr, Douglas said: 

Mr. Chairman and Fellow-citizens : 

I can find no language which can adequately express my profound grati- 
tude for the magnificent welcome which you have extended to me on this oc- 
casion. This vast sea of human faces indicates how deep an interest is felt 
by our people in the great questions which agitate the public mind and which 
underlie the foundations of our free institutions. A reception like this, so 
great in numbers that no human voice can be heard to its countless thousands 
— so enthusiastic that no one individual can be the object of such enthusiasm, 
clearly shows that there is some great principle which sinks deep in the heart 
of the masses, and involves the rights and the liberties of a whole people, that 
has brought you together with a unanimity and a cordiality never before ex- 
celled, if, indeed, equaled on any occasion. (Cheers.) I have not the vanity 
to believe that it is any personal compliment to me. 

(Voices, "It is!" "You have deserved it;" and great applause.) 

It is an expression of your devotion to that great principle of self-govern- 
ment (cries of "Hear," " hear") to which my life for many years past has 
been, and in the whole future will be devoted. (Immense cheering.) If 
there is any one principle dearer and more sacred than all others in free gov- 
ernments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form 
and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and regulate their own 
internal affairs and domestic institutions. (Applause.) 

When I found an effort being made during the recent session of Congress 
to force a Constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, and to 
force that state into the Union with a Constitution which her people had re- 
j^ted by more than 10,000, I felt bound, as a man of honor and a representa- 
tive of Illinois — bound by every consideration of duty, of fidelity, and of 
patriotism, to resist to the utmost of my power the consummation of that 
fraud. (Cheers.) "With others I did resist it, and resisted it successfully until 
the attempt was abandoned. (Great applause.) "We forced them to refer that 
Constitution back to the people of Kansas, to be accepted or rejected as they 
shall decide at an election which is fixed for the first Monday of August next. 
It is true that the mode of reference and the form of the submission was not 
such as I could sanction with my vote, for the reason that it discriminated 
between free states and slave states; providing that if Kansas consented to 
come in under the Lecompton Constitution, it should be received with a popu- 
lation of 35,000; but that if she demanded another Constitution, more con- 
sistent with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it should not 
be received into the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. (Cries of 
"Hear," "hear," and cheers.) I did not consider that mode of submission 
• fair, for the reason that any election is a mockery which is not free — that any 
election is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out inducements 
for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes. (Hear, hear.) 
But, while I was not satisfied with the mode of submission — while I resisted 
it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, still, when 
the law passed placing it within the power of the people of Kansas at that 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 407 

election to reject the Lecompton Constitution, and then make another in har- 
mony with their principles and their opinions (Bravo, and applause), I did not 
believe that either the penalties on the one hand, or the inducements on the 
other, would force that people to accept a Constitution to which they are irre- 
concilably opposed. (Cries of "Glorious," and renewed applause.) All I can 
say is, that if their votes can be controlled by such considerations, all the 
sympathy which has been expended upon them has been misplaced, and ah 
the efforts that have been made in defense of their rights to self-government 
have been made in an unworthy cause. (Cheers.) 

Hence, my friends, I regard the Lecompton battle as having been fought 
and the victory won, because the arrogant demand for the admission of Kan- 
sas under the Lecompton Constitution unconditionally, whether her people 
wanted it or not, has been abandoned, and the principle which recognizes the 
right of the people to decide for themselves has been substituted in its place. 
(Immense applause.) 

Fellow-citizens. — While I devoted my best energies — all my energies, men- 
tal and physical — to the vindication of that great principle, and while the re- 
sult has been such as will enable the people of Kansas to come into the Union 
with such a Constitution as they desire, yet the credit of this great moral vic- 
tory is to be divided among a large number of men of various and different 
political creeds. (Prolonged applause.) I was rejoiced when I found in this 
great contest the Republican party coming up manfully and sustaining the 
principle that the people of each territory, when coming into the Union, have 
the right to decide for themselves (Cheers) whether slavery shall or shall not 
exist within their limits. (A voice, " Hope they will stick to it," and great 
cheering.) I have seen the time when that principle was controverted. I 
have seen the time when all parties did not recognize the right of a people to 
have slavery or freedom, to tolerate or prohibit slavery, as they deemed best, 
but claimed that power for the Congress of the United States, regardless of 
the wishes of the people to be affected by it ; and when I found upon the 
Crittenden-Montgomery Bill the Republicans and the Americans of the North, 
and I may say, too, some glorious Americans and Old Line Whigs from the 
South (Cheers), like Crittenden and his patriotic associates, joined with a por- 
tion of the Democracy to carry out and vindicate the right of the people to 
decide whether slavery should or should not exist within the limits of Kan- 
sas, I was rejoiced within my secret soul, for I saw an indication that the 
American people, when they come to understand the principle, would give it 
their cordial support. (Cheers.) 

The Crittenden-Montgomery Bill was as fair and as perfect an exposition 
of the doctrine of popular sovereignty as could be carried out by any bill that 
man ever devised. It proposed to refer the Lecompton Constitution back to 
the people of Kansas, and give them the right to accept or reject it as they 
pleased at a fair election, held in pursuance of law, and in the event of their 
rejecting it and forming another in its stead, to permit them to come into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original states. It was fair and just in 
all of its provisions. I gave it my cordial support, and was rejoiced when I 
found that it passed the House of Representatives, and at one time I enter- 
tained high hope that it would pass the Senate. (Applause.) 

I regard the great principle of popular sovereignty as having been vindicated 
and made triumphant in this land as a permanent rule of public policy in the 
organization of territories and the admission of new states. (Cheers.) Illi- 
nois took her position upon this principle many years ago. You all recollect 
that in 1850, after the passage of the compromise measures of that year, when 
I returned to my home there was great dissatisfaction expressed at my course 
in supporting those measures. (Shame.) I appeared before the people of 
Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated each and every one of those meas 



408 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ures ; and by reference to my speech on that occasion, which was printed and 
circulated broadcast throughout the state at the time, you will find that I 
then and there said that those measures were all founaed upon the great prin- 
ciple that every people ought to possess the right to form and regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way, and that that right being pos- 
sessed by the people of the states, I saw no reason why the same principle 
should not be extended to all of the territories of the United States. A gen- 
eral election was held in this state a few months afterward for members of 
the Legislature, pending which all these questions were thoroughly canvassed 
and discussed, and the nominees of the different parties instructed in regard 
to the wishes of their constituents upon them. When that election was over, 
and the Legislature assembled, they proceeded to consider the merits of those 
compromise measures and the principles upon which they were predicated. 
And what was the result of their action? They passed resolutions, first re- 
pealing the Wilmot Proviso instructions, and in lieu thereof adopted another 
resolution, in which they declared the great principle which asserts the right 
of the people to make their own form of government and establish their own 
institutions. That resolution is as follows: 

" Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of 
the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; 
that this great principle, the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, se- 
cured to us by the blood of our ancestors, ought to be extended to future 
generations, and no limitation ought to be applied to this power in the organ- 
ization of any territory of the United States of either a territorial govern- 
ment or state Constitution, provided the government so established shall be 
Republican and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States." 

That resolution, declaring the great principle of self-government as appli- 
cable to the territories and new states, passed the House of Representatives 
of this state by a vote of sixty-one in the affirmative to only four in the nega- 
tive. Thus you find that an expression of public opinion, enlightened, edu- 
cated, intelligent public opinion on this question by the representatives of 
Hlinois, in 1851, approaches nearer to unanimity than has ever been ob- 
tained on any controverted question. That resolution was entered on the 
Journal of the Legislature of Illinois, and it has remained there from that 
day to this, a standing instruction to her senators and a request to her repre- 
sentatives in Congress to carry out that principle in all future cases. Illinois, 
therefore, stands pre-eminent as the state which stepped forward early and 
established a platform applicable to this slavery question, concurred in alike 
by Whigs and Democrats, in which it was declared to be the wish of our 
people that thereafter the people of the territories should be left perfectly free 
to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, and that no 
limitation should be placed upon that right in any form. (Tremendous ap- 
plause.) Hence, what was my duty in 1854, when it became necessary to 
bring forward a bill for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and 
Nebraska? Was it not my duty, in obedience to the Illinois platform, to 
four standing instructions to your senators, adopted with almost entire unani- 
mity, to incorporate in that bill the great principle of self-government, de- 
claring that it was " the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate 
slavery into any state or territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- 
tions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States?" 
(Cries of "Yes, yes," and cheers.) I did incorporate that principle in the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and perhaps I did as much as any living man in the 
enactment of that bill — (great applause) — thus establishing the doctrine in 
the public policy of the country. (Cries of " G-ood," and renewed applause.) 
I then defended that principle against assaults from one section of the Union. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 409 

During this last winter it became my duty to vindicate it against assaults 
from the other section of the Union. (Cheers.) I vindicated it boldly and 
fearlessly, as the people of Chicago can bear witness, when it was assailed 
by Free-soilers — ( li Yes, yes," and cheers) — and during this winter I vindi- 
cated and defended it as boldly and as fearlessly when it was attempted to be 
violated by the almost united South. (Immense applause.) I pledged my- 
self to you on every stump in Illinois in 1854, 1 pledged myself to the people 
of other states, North and South — wherever I spoke — and in the United States 
Senate and elsewhere, in every form in which I could reach the public mind 
or the public ear, I gave the pledge that I, so far as the power should be in 
my hands, would vindicate the principle of the right of the people to form 
their own institutions, to establish free states or slave states as they chose, 
and that that principle should never be violated either by fraud, by violence, 
by circumvention, or by any other means, if it was in my power to prevent it. 
(Applause.) I now submit to you, my fellow citizens, whether I have not 
redeemed that pledge in good faith ! (Cries of " Yes, yes," and three 
tremendous cheers.) Yes, my friends, I have redeemed it in good faith, and 
it is a matter of heartfelt gratification to me to see these assembled thou- 
sands here to-night bearing their testimony to the fidelity with which I have 
advocated that principle and redeemed my pledges in connection with it. 
(Cheers.) 

I will be entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the right of 
the people of each state and of each territory, North or South, to decide the 
question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just as they chose ; and my 
opposition to the Lecompton Constitution was not predicated upon the 
ground that it was a Pro-slavery Constitution — (cheers) — nor would my 
action have been different had it been a Free-soil Constitution. My speech 
against the Lecompton fraud was made on the 9th of December, while the 
vote on the slavery clause in that Constitution was not taken until the 
21st of the same month, nearly two weeks after. I made my speech 
against that Lecompton monstrosity solely on the ground that it was a vio- 
lation of the fundamental principles of free government ; on the ground that 
it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not embody 
their will; that they were averse to it; and hence I denied the right of 
Congress to force it upon them, either as a free state or a slave state. 
(Bravo.) I deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding state upon an 
unwilling people. (Cheers.) I deny their right to force a free state upon an. 
unwilling people. (Cheers.) I deny their right to force a good thing upon a 
people who are unwilling to receive it. (Cries of " Good, good," and cheers.) 
The great principle is the right of every community to judge and decide foi 
itself whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would be good or evil 
for them to adopt it ; and the right of free action, the right of free thought, 
the right of free judgment upon the question is dearer to every true American 
than any other under a free government. My objection to the Lecompton 
contrivance was that it undertook to put a Constitution on the people of Kan- 
sas against their will, in opposition to their wishes, and thus violated the 
great principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to this 
argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. 
You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or 
an evil. You allow them to decide for themselves whether they desire a 
Maine liquor law or not; you allow them to decide for themselves what 
kind of common schools they will have ; what system of banking they will 
adopt, or whether they will adopt any at all ; you allow them to decide for 
themselves the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, and 
guardian and ward ; in fact, you allow them to decide for themselves all 
other questions, and why not upon this question? (Cheers.) "Whenever 

S 



410 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

you put a limitation upon the right of any people to decide what laws they 
want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self-government. 
(Cheers.) 

In connection with this subject, perhaps, it will not be improper for me 
on this occasion to allude to the position of those who have chosen to arraign 
my conduct on this same subject. I have observed from the public prints 
that but a few days ago the Republican party of the State of Illinois assem- 
bled in convention at Springfield, and not only laid down their platform, but 
nominated a candidate for the United States Senate as my successor. 
(Hisses.) I take great pleasure in saying that I have known personally and 
intimately, for about a quarter of a century, the worthy gentleman who has 
been nominated for my place — (a voice, " He will never get it," and cheers) — 
and I will say that I regard him as a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentle- 
man, a good citizen, and an honorable opponent ; and whatever issue I may 
have with him will be of principle, and not involving personalities. (Cheers.) 
Mr. Lincoln made a speech before that Republican convention which unani- 
mously nominated him for the Senate — a speech evidently well prepared and 
carefully written — in which he states the basis upon which he proposes to 
carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays down two distinct 
propositions, which I shall notice, and upon which I shall take a direct and 
bold issue with him. (Cries of " G-ood, good," and great applause.) 

His first and main proposition I will give in his own language, Scripture 
quotation and all. (Laughter.) I give his exact language : " ' A house di- 
vided against itself can not stand.' I believe this government can not en- 
dure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be 
dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it to cease to 
be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." 

In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts as a fundamental principle of this 
government that there must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic in- 
stitutions of each and all the states of the Union, and he therefore invites all 
the non-slaveholding states to band together, organize as one body, and make 
war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in Virginia, upon slavery in the 
Carolinas, upon slavery in all of the slaveholding states in this Union, and 
to persevere in that war until it shall be exterminated. He then notifies the 
slaveholding states to stand together as a unit and make an aggressive war 
upon the free states of this Union with a view of establishing slavery in 
them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon New York, upon New 
England, and upon every other free state, and that they shall keep up the 
warfare until it has been formally established in them all. In other words, 
Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war of the 
North against the South, of the free states against the slave states — a war 
of extermination — to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other 
shall be subdued, and all the states shall either become free or become 



Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly, that I take bold, unqualified 
issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it is neither desirable nor 
possible that there should be uniformity in the local institutions and domes- 
tic regulations of the different states of this Union. The framers of our 
government never contemplated uniformity in its internal concerns. The 
fathers of the Revolution, and the sages who made the Constitution, well 
understood that the laws and domestic institutions which would suit the 
granite hills of New Hampshire would be totally unfit for the rice planta- 
tions of South Carolina (Cheers) ; they well understood that the laws which 
would suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York would 
be totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the lumber re- 
gions of Maine. (Bravo). They well understood that the great varieties of 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 411 

soil, of production, and of interests, in a republic as large as this, required 
different local and domestic regulations in each locality, adapted to the wants 
and interests of each separate state (cries of "Bravo, "and "G-ood"), and 
for that reason it was provided in the federal Constitution that the thirteen 
original states should remain sovereign and supreme within their own limits 
in regard to all that was local, and internal, and domestic, while the federal 
government should have certain specified powers which were general and 
national, and could be exercised only by the federal authority. (Cheers). 

The framers of the Constitution well understood that each locality, having 
separate and distinct interests, required separate and distinct laws, domestic 
institutions, and police regulations adapted to its own wants and its own 
condition ; and they acted on the presumption, also, that these laws and in- 
stitutions would be as diversified and as dissimilar as the states would be 
numerous, and that no two would be precisely alike, because the interests 
of no two would be precisely the same. Hence, I assert, that the great 
fundamental principle which underlies our complex system of state and fed- 
eral governments contemplated diversity and dissimilarity in the local insti- 
tutions and domestic affairs of each and every state then in the Union, or 
thereafter to be admitted into the confederacy. I therefore conceive that 
my friend, Mr. Lincoln, has totally misapprehended the great principles upon 
which our government rests. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs would 
be destructive of state rights, of state sovereignty, of personal liberty, and 
personal freedom. Uniformity is the parent of despotism the world over, 
not only in politics, but in religion. Wherever the doctrine of uniformity is 
proclaimed, that all the states must be free or all slave, that all labor must 
be white or all black, that all the citizens of the different states must have 
the same privileges or be governed by the same regulations, you have de- 
stroyed the greatest safeguard which our institutions have thrown around 
the rights of the citizen. ("Bravo," and great applause). 

How could this uniformity be accomplished if it was desirable and pos- 
sible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, and that must 
be by abolishing the state Legislatures, blotting out state sovereignty, merg- 
ing the rights and sovereignty of the states in one consolidated empire, and 
vesting Congress with the plenary power to make all the police regulations, 
domestic- and local laws, uniform throughout the limits of the republic. 
When you shall have done this you will have uniformity. Then the states 
will all be slave or all be free ; then negroes will vote everywhere or no 
where ; then you will have a Maine liquor law in every state or none ; 
then you will have uniformity in all things local and domestic by the au- 
thority of the federal government. But, when you attain that uniformity, you 
will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, independent states into one 
consolidated empire, with the uniformity of despotism reigning triumphant 
throughout the length and breadth of the land. (G-reat applause). 

From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly to the 
conclusion that diversity, dissimilarity, variety in all our local and domestic 
institutions, is the great safeguard of our liberties ; and that the framers of 
our institutions were wise, sagacious, and patriotic when they made this 
government a confederation of several states with a Legislature for each, 
and conferred upon each Legislature the power to make all local and do- 
mestic institutions to suit the people it represented, without interference from 
any other state or from the general Congress of the Union. If we expect to 
maintain our liberties, we must preserve the rights and sovereignty of the 
states ; we must maintain and carry out that great principle of self-govern- 
ment incorporated in the compromise measures of 1850 ; endorsed by the 
Illinois Legislature of 1851 ; emphatically embodied and carried out in the 



412 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and vindicated this year by the refusal to bring Kansas 
into the Union with a Constitution distasteful to her people. (Cheers). 

The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in his speech consists in a 
crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States on account of the 
Dred Scott decision. On this question, also, I desire to say to you, unequiv- 
ocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to 
make on the Supreme Court of the United States (Bravo), either on account 
of that or any other decision which they have pronounced from that bench. 
(" Good, good," and enthusiastic applause). The Constitution of the United 
States has provided that the powers of government (and the Constitution of 
each state has the same provision) shall be divided into three departments, 
executive, legislative, and judicial. The right and the province of expound- 
ing the Constitution, and constructing the law, is vested in the judiciary es- 
tablished by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear 
before the court and controvert any principle of law while the question is 
pending before the tribunal ; but when the decision is made, my private 
opinion, your opinion, all other opinions, must yield to the majesty of that 
authoritative adjudication. (Cries of " It is right," " Good, good," and cheers). 

I wish you to bear in mind that this involves a great principle, upon 
which our rights, and our liberty, and our property all depend. What se- 
curity have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal 
rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once 
firmly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution ? (Cheers.) 
I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in re- 
viewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either 
upon the Dred Scott case, or any other. I have no idea of appealing from 
the decision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional question to the de- 
cision of a tumultuous town meeting. (Cheers.) I am aware that once an 
eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that the State of Illinois had 
the most perfect judicial system in the world, subject to but one exception, 
which could be cured by a slight amendment, and that amendment was to so 
change the law as to allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme 
Court of Illinois, on all constitutional questions, to two justices of the peace. 
(Great laughter and applause.) My friend Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, 
reminds me that that proposition was made when I was a judge of the Su- 
preme Court. Be that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater 
weight or authority to the suggestion. (Renewed laughter and applause.) 
It matters not with me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or my- 
self, whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taney or a Marshall ; the decision 
of the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of the country must be final 
until it has been reversed by an equally high authority. (Cries of '"Bravo," 
and applause.) Hence I am opposed to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by 
which he proposes to take an appeal from the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States upon these high constitutional questions to a Re- 
publican caucus sitting in the country. (A voice — " Call it Free-soil," and 
cheers.) Yes, or to any other caucus or town meeting, whether it be Re- 
publican, American, or Democratic. (Cheers.) I respect the decisions of 
that august tribunal ; I shall always bow in deference to them. I am a law- 
abiding man. 1 will sustain the Constitution of my country as our fathers 
have made it. I will yield obedience to the laws, whether I like them or 
not, as I find them on the statute-book. I will sustain the judicial tribunals 
and constituted authorities in all matters within the pale of their jurisdiction, 
as defined by the Constitution. (Applause.) But I am equally free to say 
that the reason assigned by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the Su- 
preme Court in the Dred Scott case does not in itself meet my approbation. 
He objects to it because that decision declared that a negro descended from 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 413 

African parents who were brought here and sold as slaves is not and can not 
be a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, because it deprives 
the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution which says that 
citizens of one state shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of 
the several states ; in other words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives 
the negro of the privileges, immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, 
according to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to say to you 
that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. 
(Great applause.) It was made by the white man for the benefit of the white 
man, to be administered by white men in such manner as they should de- 
termine. (Cheers.) It is also true that a negro, an Indian, or any other 
man of an inferior race to a white man, should be permitted to enjoy, and 
humanity requires that he should have, all the rights, privileges, and immu- 
nities which he is capable of exercising consistent with the safety of society. 
I would give him every right and every privilege which his capacity would 
enable him to enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in which he 
lived. ( : ' Bravo.") But you may ask me what are these rights and these 
privileges. My answer is that each state must decide for itself the nature 
and extent of these rights. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) Illinois has de- 
cided for herself. We have decided that the negro shall not be a slave, and 
we have at the same time decided that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, 
or enjoy political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which 
we have adopted for ourselves. (Cheers.) I deny the right of any other 
state to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to 
attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of Maine has decided 
that in that state a negro may vote on an equality with the white man. The 
sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe that rule for herself. 
Illinois has no right to complain of Maine for conferring the right of negro 
suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with, or complain of Illinois be- 
cause she has denied negro suffrage. ( 4i That's so," and cheers.) The State 
of New York has decided by her Constitution that a negro may vote provided 
that he owns $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. The rich negro 
can vote, but the poor one can not. (Laughter.) Although that distinction 
does not commend itself to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign 
power of New York had a right to prescribe that form of the elective fran- 
chise. Kentucky, Virginia and other states, have provided that negroes, or 
a certain class of them in those states, shall be slaves, having neither civil 
or political lights. Without endorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert 
that "Virginia has the same power by virtue of her sovereignty to protect 
slavery within her limits as IUinois has to banish it forever from our own 
borders. (" Hear, hear," and applause.) I assert the right of each state to 
decide for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doctrine 
of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable or possible. I 
do not acknowledge that the states must all be free or must all be slave. 
I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights 
everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have 
the same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I do not 
acknowledge that the cooley imported into this country must necessarily be 
put upon an equality with the white race. I do not acknowledge any of 
these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic regulations in the dif- 
ferent states. ("Bravo," and cheers.) 

Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself, as respective candidates for the United States Senate, as made up, are 
direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our domes- 
tic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. 
I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the right of the peo- 



414 LIFE OF STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 

pie to decide for themselves. (Senator Douglas was here interrupted by the 
•wildest applause ; cheer after cheer rent the air; the band struck up " Yankee 
Doodle;" rockets and pieces of fireworks blazed forth, and the enthusiasm was 
so intense and universal that it was some time before order could be restored 
and Mr. Douglas, resume. The scene at this period was glorious beyond de- 
scription.) 

On the other point, Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court 
of the United States because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. 
I yield obedience to the decisions of that court — to the final determination of 
the highest judicial tribunal known to our Constitution. He objects to the 
Dred Scott decision because it does not put the negro in the possession of the 
rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. I am opposed to 
negro equality. (Immense applause.) I repeat that this nation is a white 
people — a people composed of European descendants — a people that have 
established this government for themselves and their posterity, and I am in 
favor of preserving not only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the 
government, from any mixture or amalgamation with inferior races. (Renewed 
applause.) I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior and inferior 
races — this amalgamation of white men and Indians and negroes ; we have 
seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in all the Span- 
ish-American states, and its result has been degeneration, demoralization, and 
degradation below the capacity for self-government. (" True, true.") 

I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the In- 
dian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in 
the administration of the government. I would extend to the negro, and the 
Indian, and to all dependent races, every right, every privilege, and every 
immunity consistent with the safety and welfare of the white races (bravo) ; 
but equality they never should have, either political or social, or in any other 
respect whatever. (Cries of " Good," "good," and protracted cheers.) 

My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the 
same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of 
Illinois heretofore. (Cries of "That's true," and applause.) I stand by the 
Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its regu- 
lar nominations. (Intense enthusiasm.) I indorse and approve the Cincin- 
nati platform (renewed applause), and I adhere to and intend to carry out, 
as part of that platform, the great principle of self-government, which recog- 
nizes the right of the people in each state and territory to decide for them- 
selves their domestic institutions. ("Good," "good," and cheers.) In other 
words, if the Lecompton issue shall arise again, you have only to turn back 
and see where you have found me during the last six months, and then rest 
assured that you will find me in the same position, battling for the same prin- 
ciple, and vindicating it from assault from whatever quarter it may come, so 
long as I have the power to do it. (Cheers.) 

Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions 
which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending cam- 
paign. I have spoken without preparation, and in a very desultory manner, 
and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss, and may have 
been less implicit on others than I could have wished. I have made up my 
mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has been made 
against me. (Enthusiastic applause.) The Republican leaders have formed 
an alliance — an unholy, unnatural alliance — with a portion of the unscrupulous 
federal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meet them. 
(Cheers.) I know they deny the alliance while avowing the common purpose, 
but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the pur- 
pose of electing a Republican senator in my place are just as much the agents, 
the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 415 

and expect their reward for their services when the Republicans come into 
power. (Cries of " That is true," and cheers.) I shall deal with these allied 
forces just as the Russians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians, 
when they fired a broadside at the common enemy, did not stop to inquire, 
whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop 
(Laughter and great applause) ; nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows 
hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices, 
and yet acting in concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party 
and its nominees. (Cheers, and cries of " Bravo 1") I do not include all of 
the federal office-holders in this remark. Such of them as are Democracts, 
and show their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization 
and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats ; but those who, having 
been defeated inside of the organization, go outside, and attempt to divide and 
destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be 
Democracts, and belong to the allied army, whose avowed object is to elect 
the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party. 
(Cheers.) 

My friends, I have exhausted myself (cries of "Don't stop yet), and I cer- 
tainly have fatigued you (" No, no," and " Go on") in the long and desultory 
remarks which I have made. (" Go on longer," " We want to hear you," 
etc.) It is now two nights since I have been to bed, and I think I have a right 
to a little sleep. (Cheers, and a voice — "May you sleep soundly.") I will, 
however, have an opportunity of meeting you face to face, and addressing you 
on more than one occasion before the November election. (Cries of " "We 
hope so," etc.) In conclusion, I must again say to you, justice to my own 
feelings demands it, that my gratitude for the welcome you have extended to 
me on this occasion knows no bounds, and can be described by no language 
which I can command. (Cries of " "We did our duty," and cheers.) I see that 
I am literally at home when among my constituents. (Cries of " Welcome 
home," " You have done your duty," " Good," etc.) This welcome has amply 
repaid me for every effort that I have made in the public service during nearly 
twenty -five years that I have held office at your hands. (Cheers ; a voice — 
"You will hold it longer.") It not only compensates me for the past, but it 
furnishes an inducement and incentive for future effort, which no man, no 
matter how patriotic, can feel who has not witnessed the magnificent reception 
you have extended to me to-night on my return. 

At the conclusion of the remarks of Judge Douglas there was a spontaneous 
outburst of enthusiastic admiration. Cheers upon cheers followed, and the 
dense masses who had stood so long in solid ranks refused to separate, but 
continued for some time in vociferous applause. 

Then followed another discharge of elegant fireworks. One piece, situ- 
ated at the northwest corner of Dearborne and Lake Streets, was soon in a 
blaze, and as the fire ran from point to point on its surface, there was gradu- 
tally revealed, in letters of dazzling and sparkling light, the glorious motto 
" Popular Sovereignty." This handsome and appropriate display renewed 
the enthusiasm of the multitude, and for more than an hour thousands of our 
people surrounded the hotel, cheering Douglas, Popular Sovereignty, and the 
Kansas-Nebraska Act. 



416 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. 

Mr. Lincoln addressed a Republican meeting at the same 
place on the next evening, and the active campaign had now 
been formally opened. The Republican leaders were sanguine 
of success. They became extravagantly delighted with the 
Danites. On the 14th of July the leading Republican paper 
of Chicago addressed words of strong encouragement to that 
faction. It affected a fear of its strength, and had the effron- 
tery to tell its readers that Douglas and his party were a mere 
handful and that the real party with whom the Republicans 
would have to contend would be the Danites. 

It may not be out of place here to remark that as nearly as 
could be estimated by those not within the inner circles of 
Republican councils, there was about sixty thousand dollars of 
Republican money, besides considerable self respect recklessly 
sacrificed during that year in keeping the Danite party on its 
legs. It was an expensive item in the cost of the election, 
and we doubt very much if the organization and opposition of 
that faction did not give the Democratic party additional 
strength by enlisting the timid and negligent in the cause 
which was so fearfully threatened by the allies. 

On the night of the 15th Judge Douglas was visited by a 
delegation of the German Democrats of Chicago — than whom 
a nobler band of patriots does not exist in the Union. It is 
true they form but a small portion of the German population 
of Chicago, but they are men of intelligence, education and 
experience. They understand the true principles of American 
freedom, and the Constitution has no more devoted supporters 
in the state. The speeches on the occasion were most happy. 

On the morning of the 16th Judge Douglas left Chicago 
on his way to Springfield to meet the Democratic State Com- 
mittee. The object and intention of his visit were well known. 
All along the road at every station he was greeted with all 
possible demonstrations of welcome. At Bloomington, where 
he arrived in the afternoon, he was met by a vast concourse of 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 41? 

people ; he was greeted with a salute, which was re-echoed by 
a cannon carried down on the train by a large delegation from 
Joliet. 

In the evening he made a speech of over two hours and a 
half. Of that speech an edition of eighty thousand was 
printed in pamphlet form and distributed all over Illinois, and 
copies were sent to all parts of the Union. It was also pub- 
lished in all the Democratic papers of the state, and thus dis- 
tributed everywhere. 

Particular reference is made to this speech because in it is 
contained an assertion of doctrine exactly similar in all practi- 
cal operation and effect with that subsequently expressed at 
Freeport. At that time, however, July 16th, the allies thought 
there was no chance of Douglas' success, and it was not 
thought necessary to discover treason to Democratic faith in 
sentiments corresponding exactly with those uniformly ex- 
pressed by him during the previous eight years of active dis- 
cussion of the slavery question. The next day he proceeded 
on his way to Springfield. Present at his speech in Bloom- 
ington and on board the same train to Springfield was Mr. 
Lincoln. As the train proceeded it grew in length. At every 
station there was a mass of Democrats waiting to greet the 
champion of Democratic principles. Additional cars had to 
be added, and when the train reached Springfield it had 
twenty-five cars, each filled to overflowing with enthusiastic 
Democrats. Lincoln was perhaps the only Lincoln man on the 
train. During the day, which had been sultry, there fell 
heavy showers, yet the Democracy were not deterred in their 
determination to honor the man against whom there had been 
arraigned the force of such an extraordinary combination. 
Large trains filled to overflowing had come up from the lower 
part of the state. The vast multitude repaired to Edward's 
grove, and notwithstanding the ground was wet, and the 
trees dripping with the rain that had fallen, for three hours 
they remained listening to the voice of Stephen A. Douglas, 
who, in the name of Democratic truth, the Constitution and 
the vested rights of the people of the states and territories, 
bid Black Republicanism and its allies bold defiance. The 
writer of these pages witnessed that day of rejoicing, excite- 
ment and enthusiasm. It is imposible to describe it. It was 
the voluntary outpouring of popular enthusiasm towards a 

S2 



418 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

man who had no patronage at *his disposal, who was de- 
nounced as a political outcast, yet who with words of truth 
and burning eloquence proclaimed the everlasting principles 
of Democracy. His speech on this occasion was published in 
full, and an edition of fifty thousand copies in pamphlet form 
was distributed in Illinois and other states. 

At night Lincoln spoke in reply at the State House. 

During the next few days Judge Douglas, acting with the 
State Democratic Committee, fixed upon a list of appointments 
for Democratic meetings, which list was published at once in 
all the Democratic papers of the State. This first list extended 
only to the 21st of August, but was afterwards extended to 
the last of October. The complete list was as follows : 

Clinton, on July 27th, then in succession at Monticello, Paris, 
Hillsboro, Greenville, Edwardsville, Highland, Winchester, 
Pittsfield, Beardstown, Havana, Lewiston, Peoria, Lacon, 
Ottawa, Galena, Freeport, Junction, Joliet, Pontiac, Lincoln, 
Jacksonville, Carlinville, Belleville, Waterloo, Chester, Jones- 
boro, Benton, Charleston, Danville, Urbana, Kankakee, Hene- 
pin, Henry, Metamora, Pekin, Oquaka, Monmouth, Galesburg, 
Macomb, Carthage, Quincy, Alton, Gillespie, Decatur, Spring- 
field, Atlanta, Bloomington, Toulon, Genessee, Rock Island — 
the last being on Friday, October 30 — the election taking place 
on Tuesday, the 3d of November. These were his regular ap- 
pointments, but in addition to these he spoke perhaps at 
twenty other places, being points on his route, at which the 
people would turn out, and insist upon his speaking to them. 
His speeches at his regular appointments averaged about two 
hours and a half each ; except those at the joint discussions, 
where the time was limited to one hour and a half. A glance 
at the map of the State will give an idea of the distance trav- 
eled, and the activity necessary to get from point to point 
upon the list of designated places. It was a task requiring a 
wonderful display of fortitude and of physical endurance. At 
almost each of these places Senator Douglas was met at a dis- 
tance from the town by committees, who in the name of the 
Democracy welcomed him to the place. To all these speeches 
Judge Douglas made a response extending from ten to thirty 
minutes. He was then escorted to the place of meeting where 
he delivered his regular speech. 

On the 24th of July Mr. Douglas returned to Chicago, pre- 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 419 

paratory to setting out to meet his appointments, the first of 
which was fixed at Clinton on the 27th. Mr. Lincoln addressed 
him a note proposing that they should canvass the State to- 
gether. Lincoln or his friends had seen enough of the enthu- 
siasm of the people along the line of Mr. Douglas' late journey 
to satisfy every one that wherever Douglas was announced to 
speak there would be no lack of auditors — men of all parties. 
To allow Douglas to address these immense gatherings of 
Democrats and Republicans, without any reply being made to 
his remarks, was something that required attention if it could 
not be prevented. Mr. Douglas responded, stating his regret 
that Mr. Lincoln had not thought it proper to make the pro- 
posal at an earlier day, and before he (Mr. D.), had with the 
Democratic State Committee arranged a series of exclusive 
Democratic meetings, at which not only he, but the Demo- 
cratic nominees for Congress and the Legislature were ex- 
pected to speak. Mr. Lincoln had gone down to Springfield 
with him, and from the 9th to the 24th had never said one 
word upon the subject. He, however, agreed to meet Mr. 
Lincoln once in each congressional district ; and that, as they 
had already both spoken at Chicago in the Second District 
and Springfield in the Sixth District, they would have one 
meeting in each of the other seven districts. He then left 
Chicago and proceeded to Clinton ; Mr. Lincoln was present 
on that occasion ; he next went to Monticello, where Lincoln 
was again present. Lincoln subsequently accepted Douglas' 
offer in a letter which, for its strange combination of phrases, 
has become historical in Illinois as "Lincoln's conclusion." 
Judge Douglas then named the following places for the joint 
discussions : 



Ottawa, 


3d District, 


August 21. 


Freeport, 


1st " 


" 27. 


Jonesboro, 


9th " 


Sept. 15. 


Charlston, 


7th " 


18. 


Galesburg, 


4th " 


Oct 7. 


Quincy, 


5th " 


" 13. 


Alton, 


8th " 


" 15. 



On the 7th of August Senator Trumbull spoke at Chicago, 
and indulged in language of the lowest and most disreputable 
personal abuse of Mr. Douglas. His special subject was the 
alleged mutilation of the " Toombs Bill." That speech was so 
boldly vituperative, and contained allegations so utterly reck- 



420 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

less, tbat it failed in producing aay impression save disgust for 
the author. His allegations were promptly exposed and tri- 
umphantly refuted. 

Douglas' tour over the State was a succession of triumphs 
such as had rarely ever been witnessed in Illinois. Presiden- 
tial aspirants in the Democratic party, who desired his defeat, 
hovered about Illinois, and were alarmed at the prospect. The 
arm of Federal power fell upon officials who dared say they 
would vote for Douglas. Brainard was appointed to the 
marine hospital in place of Dr. M'Vickar, an accomplished 
physician and a Democrat of unimpeachable integrity. 

An amusing incident occurred at this time, and it is ques- 
tionable whether in the history of partizanship a parallel can 
be found for it. A venerable gentleman was holding a small, 
very small Federal office in Chicago. He was the father of 
twenty-one children ; his age, his democracy and his patriar- 
chal character could not save him from destruction. One of 
the respectable statesmen who, living far off from Illinois had 
taken such an interest in Illinois politics, and had become so 
anxious for Lincoln's success, reached Chicago, and in a few 
days it was ascertained that the fate of the venerable office- 
holder was sealed. On the morning when the papers for his 
removal and for the appointment of his successor were about 
to be sent off to Washington, the old man rushed into the 
hotel, entered unbidden the council chamber of the Danites, 
and addressing the exalted dispenser of Federal patronage, 
exclaimed, " He has come ! My wife have my twenty-second 

child this morning, and I have called him , and 

he look very much like you !" 

The prefixes to the family name of the boy were the names 
of Mr. Buchanan's embassador to Illinois. Human nature 
could not resist that appeal ! He had already one boy named 
James Buchanan, and another Howell Cobb. Even Danito 
revenge yielded, and the old man was continued in office. 
The old man afterwards said that if Bright and Fitch would 
only give him ordinary time and notice he would be prepared 
for them when they should come to Illinois for the purpose of 
removing him. Since that time, however, his head has fallen, 
and the old gentleman is no longer an officer of the govern- 
ment. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 421 



MR. DOUGLAS VISITS HIS FIRST HOME IN ILLINOIS. 

On August the 7th, 1858, Mr. Douglas reached Winchester. 
The people had taken the trouble to send all the way to Alton 
for a piece of artillery to add its reverberating tones to the 
welcome they had prepared for him. The attendance was 
very large. Winchester claimed Douglas as her own. The 
people of that little town regarded him as one whose history 
was to be forever identified with that of Winchester. He was 
greeted with the most unbounded expressions of delight. The 
Rev. Perry Bennett, of the Baptist church, in a chaste and 
eloquent speech welcomed him to his old home — his first home 
in Illinois. Mr. Douglas thus responded to the address : 

" Ladies and gentlemen — fellow-citizens — To say that I am profoundly im- 
pressed with the keenest gratitude for the kind and cordial welcome you have 
given me in the eloquent and too partial remarks which have been addressed 
to me is but a feeble expression of the emotions of my heart. There is no 
spot on this vast globe which fills me with such emotions as when I come to 
this place, and recognize the faces of my old and good friends who now sur- 
round me and bid me welcome. Twenty-five years ago I entered this town 
on foot, with my coat upon my arm, without an acquaintance in a thousand 
miles, and without knowing where I could ge,t money to pay a week's board. 
Here I made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life, and obtained the 
first regular occupation that I ever pursued. For the first time in my life I 
felt that the responsibilities of manhood were upon me, although I was under 
age, for I had none to advise with, and knew no one upon whom I had a 
right to call for assistance or friendship. 

" Here I found the then settlers of the country my friends — my first start in 
life was taken here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election to pub- 
lic office by the people was conferred upon me by those whom I am now 
addressing and by their fathers. A quarter of a century has passed, and that 
penniless boy stands before you with his heart full and gushing with the sen- 
timents which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire." 

Mr. Douglas subsequently received a personal welcome from 
each of the vast multitude assembled at Winchester. Old 
times and old events were discussed familiarly; and men who 
had known him twenty-five years before crowded around him 
with an affectionate interest. He was a " Winchester boy," 
and Winchester people regarded him with fraternal love and 
admiration. Scott County, united with Morgan, sent up two 
members of the Legislature pledged to vote for the re-election 
of Stephen A. Douglas. 



422 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 



THE FEEEPOET " TREASON." 

During 1856., 1857, and 1858 the Democratic papers of Illi- 
nois and the Northwest, and Democratic speakers, including 
Mr. Douglas, in explaining and defending the Kansas-Nebraska 
Act, had been accustomed to quote arguments of southern 
statesmen to show that necessarily, in all communities, the 
local institutions must be sustained by the prevailing public 
sentiment, or it was useless to endeavor to maintain them. 
They had used this argument to prove that no matter what 
prohibitions Congress might enact against slavery in the terri- 
tories, if the people desired to have slaves they would have 
them ; and local courts and laws would lean toward and pro- 
tect the wishes and desires of the people. So, on the other 
hand, if slavery was not desired, it would be as effectually ex- 
cluded by an adverse public sentiment as it could be by posi- 
tive law. Upon this point they quoted as the views of a gen- 
tleman deservedly high in the estimation of the people of the 
South, and particularly of his own state, the following remarks 
of the Hon. James L. Orr, of South Carolina, made in 1856, in 
reference to the practical. operation of the Nebraska Bill, and 
these views were constantly presented to the people from the 
stump and through the press : 

OPINION OF ME. OEE IN 1856. 

" I say, although I deny that squatter sovereignty exists in the territories 
of Kansas and Nebraska by virtue of this bill, it is a matter practically of little 
consequence whether it does or not ; and I think I shall be able to satisfy the 
gentleman of that. The gentleman knows that, in every slaveholding com- 
munity of this Union, we have local legislation and local police regulations 
appertaining to that institution, without which the institution would not only 
be valueless but a curse to the community. Without them the slaveholder 
could not enforce his rights when invaded by others. And if you had no 
local legislation for the purpose of giving protection, the institution would be 
of no value.* I can appeal to every gentleman upon this floor, who represents 
a slaveholding constituency, to attest the truth of what I have stated upon 
that point. 

" Now, the legislative authority of a territory is invested with a discretion 
to vote for or against laws. "We think they ought to pass laws in every ter- 
ritory where the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there, to 
protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws what is the re- 
medy ? None, sir. If the majority of the people are opposed to the institu- 
tion, and if they do not desire it engrafted upon the territory, all they have to 
do is simply to decline to pass laws in the territorial Legislature for its protec- 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 423 

tion, and then it is as well excluded as if the power was invested in the ter- 
ritorial Legislature, and exercised by them to prohibit it. Now I ask the gen- 
tleman what is the practical importance to result from the agitation and dis- 
cussion of this question as to whether squatter sovereignty does or does not 
exist ? Practically, it is a matter of little moment." 

In June, 1857, Mr. Douglas, at the invitation of the mem- 
bers of the Grand Jury of the United States Court, and of 
other visitors at Springfield, delivered a speech at the State 
House upon the subject of Kansas and Utah affairs, and upon 
the Dred Scott decision. This speech was regarded at the 
time as the most thorough and complete vindication of the 
policy and principles ot the Democratic party upon the topics 
embraced in it that he had ever made. The speech had a wide 
circulation, and was produced in most of the leading papers in 
the slaveholding states as the view of a high-minded, far-see- 
ing, and national statesman. That speech has often been re- 
ferred to by his enemies, even after the Lecompton difficulty 
had occurred, as a speech embracing the best and clearest 
views of constitutional law and of sound statesmanship. In 
that Springfield speech of June 12, 1857, a speech which has 
been held up as a model one, as containing nothing but sound 
Democratic doctrine, Mr. Douglas, in explaining what had 
been decided by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, 
ased the following clear and emphatic language. That the 
Supreme Court had decided — 

" 2d. That the act of the 6th of March, 1820, commonly called the Mis- 
souri Compromise Act, was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed 
by the Nebraska Act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal 
effect of extinguishing a master's right to a slave in that territory. 

" "While the right continues in full force under the guarantee of the Con- 
stitution, and can not be divested or alienated by an act of Congress, it ne- 
cessarily remains a barren and worthless right unless sustained, protected, 
and enforced by appropriate police regulations and local legislation present- 
ing adequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remedies must 
necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of the people of the Ter- 
ritory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislature. 

"Hence the great principle of popular sovereignty and self-government is 
sustained and firmly established by the authority of this decision." 

In his Bloomington speech, July 16th, 1858, he thus re- 
peated the declaration of the same doctrine : 

" I tell you, my friends, it is impossible, under our institutions, to force 
slavery on an unwilling people. If this principle of popular sovereignty in- 
serted in the Nebraska Bill be fairly carried out, by letting the people decide 



424 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the question for themselves by a fair Vote, at a fair election, and with honest 
returns, slavery will never exist one day or one hour in any Territory against 
the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I care not how the Dred 
Scott decision may have settled the abstract question so far as the practical 
result is concerned ; for, to use the language of an eminent southern senator 
on this very question : 

" ' I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no par- 
ticular consequence ; slavery can not exist a day or an hour in any territory 
or state unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, furnishing 
police regulations and remedies, and an omission to furnish them would be as 
fatal as a constitutional prohibition. "Without affirmative legislation in its 
favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born infant could survive 
under the heat of the sun on a barren rock without protection. It would 
wilt and die for the want of support.' 

" Hence, if the people of a territory want slavery, they will encourage it 
by passing affirmatory laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol laws, 
and slave code ; if they do not want it they will withhold that legislation, 
and by withholding it slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a consti- 
tutional prohibition — (cheers) — especially if, in addition, their legislation is 
unfriendly, as it would be if they were opposed to it. They could pass such 
local laws and police regulations as would drive slavery out in one day, or 
one hour, if they were opposed to it, and therefore, so far as the question of 
slavery in the territories is concerned, so far as the principle of popular sove- 
reignty is concerned, in its practical operation, it matters not how the Dred 
Scott case may be decided with reference to the territories. My own opinion 
on that law point is well known. It is shown by my votes and speeches in 
Congress. But, be it as it may, the question was an abstract question, invit- 
ing no practical results, and whether slavery shall exist or shall not exist in 
any state or territory will depend upon whether the people are for it or 
against it, and whichever way they shall decide it in any territory or in any 
state will be entirely satisfactory to me. (Cheers.)" 

In his speech at Springfield, July 18, 1858, he repeated 
substantially the same remarks upon this point — the impossi- 
bility of forcing or prohibiting slavery against the wishes of 
the people. Mr. Douglas and his friends also frequently- 
quoted Mr. Buchanan's clear statement of the same doctrine, 
in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination, as follows : 

" This legislation (Kansas-Nebraska Act) is founded upon principles as 
ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply de- 
clared that the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for 
themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 

On August 21 the first joint discussion between Lincoln 
and Douglas took place ; this occurred at Ottawa, in La Salle 
county, a strong Republican district, then and now repre- 
sented in Congress by Mr. Lovejoy. The crowd in attend- 
ance was a large one, and about equally divided in political 
sentiment — the enthusiasm of the democracy having brought 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 425 

out more than a due proportion of that party to hear and see 
Douglas. His thrilling tones, his manly defiance towards the 
enemies of the party, assured his friends, if any assurance was 
wanting, that he was the same unconquered and unconquerable 
Democrat that for twenty-five years he had been proved to 
be. Douglas opened the discussion and spoke one hour; 
Lincoln followed, his time being limited to an hour and a half, 
yet he yielded thirteen minutes before the expiration of his 
time. The speeches delivered on Saturday afternoon were 
published in the Chicago Times, and Press and Tribune, on 
Sunday afternoon. They had a wide circulation. The effect 
of them was most damaging to Lincoln. It was, therefore, 
deemed necessary to concoct some plan to break off the Dem- 
ocracy from Douglas, by placing the latter in the position of a 
preacher of political heresy. The next joint meeting was to 
be at Freeport, on Friday, the 27th, and during the interval 
a meeting of the Danite and Republican leaders was held at 
Chicago to prepare some trap for Douglas. 

The speeches of Mr. Douglas, Mr. Orr, and the paragraphs 
from Mr. Buchanan's inaugural, were taken by the Danite 
and Republican leaders as the basis of a question to be pro- 
pounded to Mr. Douglas at Freeport. If he answered nega- 
tively, the answer was to be used by the allies as a repudiation 
of the principles of the Nebraska Bill, as in direct variance 
with the established doctrine of the party as declared by 
himself and by all others; and as more pro-slavery than even 
the people of South Carolina asked for. If he answered in 
the affirmative, then he was to be denounced as a preacher of 
a political heresy, according to the Republican interpretation 
of the Dred Scott decision. The questions were, therefore, 
prepared, and when the parties met at Freeport, on the 
27th, Mr. Lincoln, who had the opening, drew from his pocket 
a paper containing four questions, all (so he said) that he had 
had time to prepare for the occasion. Those questions were 
as follows : 

" 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable in all 
other respects, adopt a state Constitution, and ask admission into the Union 
under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants, according to 
the English bill, to wit: ninety-three thousand, will you vote to admit 
them? 

" 2. Can the people of the United States territory, in any lawful way 



426 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from 
their limits prior to the formation of a state Constitution ? 

" 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that states can 
not exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in 
adopting and following such decision as a rule of political action ? 

" 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in disregard of how 
such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question ? 

The second question was one involving the material point 
upon which the confederates proposed to make capital. The 
other questions really amounted to nothing, and were present- 
ed, with ostrich-like sagacity, under an impression that Douglas 
would not perceive the hidden purpose. In his speech he thus 
replied to the four questions : 

" First he desires to know, If the people of Kansas shall form a Constitu- 
tion by means entirely proper and unobjectionable, and ask admission into 
the Union as a state before they have the requisite population for a member 
of Congress, whether I will vote for that admission ? "Well, now, I regret 
exceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put 
it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which 
side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the 
beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a free state, 
because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. Mr. 
Trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a state, free or 
slave, come into the Union until it had the requisite population. As Mr. 
Trumbull is in the field fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have Mr. 
Lincoln answer his own question, and tell me whether he is fighting Trum- 
bull on that issue or not. But I will answer his question. In reference to 
Kansas, it is my opinion that, as she has population enough to constitute a 
slave state, she has people enough for a free state. I will not make Kansas 
an exceptional case to the other states of the Union. I hold it to be a sound 
rule of universal application to require a territory to contain the requisite 
population for a member of Congress before it is admitted as a state into the 
Union. I made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I renewed it 
during the last session, in a bill providing that no territory of the United 
States should form a Constitution and apply for admission until it had the 
requisite population. On another occasion I proposed that neither Kansas, 
nor any other territory, should be admitted until it had the requisite popula- 
tion. Congress did not adopt any of my propositions containing this general 
rule, but did make an exception of Kansas. I wiil stand by that exception. 
Either Kansas must come in as a free state, with whatever population she may 
have, or the rule must be applied to all the other territories alike. I there- 
fore answer at once, that it having been decided that Kansas has people 
enough for a slave state, I hold that she has enough for a free state. I hope 
Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my answer ; and now I would like to get his an- 
swer to his own interrogatory — whether or not he will vote to admit Kansas 
before she has the requisite population. I want to know whether he will 
vote to admit Oregon before that territory has the requisite population. Mr. 
Trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against 
the admission of Oregon commits him against Kansas, even if she should 
apply for admission as a free state. If there is any sincerity, any truth in 
the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate against the admission of Oregon 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 427 

because she had not 93,420 people, although her population was larger than 
that of Kansas, he stands pledged against the admission of both Oregon and 
Kansas until they have 93,420 inhabitants. I would like Mr. Lincoln to an- 
swer this question. I would like him to take his own medicine. If he differs 
with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of 
Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. 

" The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the people of 
a territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United 
States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state 
Constitution ? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer 
a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people 
of a territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to 
the formation of a state Constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered 
that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska Bill 
on that principle all over the state in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has 
no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. 
It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the 
abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a territory under 
the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude 
it as they please, for the reason that slavery can not exist a day or an hour 
anywhere unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police 
regulations can only be established by the local Legislature, and if the peo- 
ple are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who 
will, by unfriendly legislation, effectually prevent the introduction of it into 
their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor 
its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court 
may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave 
territory or a free territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska Bill. 
I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point. 

" In this connection I will notice the charge which he has introduced in 
relation to Mr. Chase's amendment. I thought that I had chased that amend- 
ment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but it seems that it still haunts 
his imagination, and he is not yet satisfied. I had supposed that he would 
be ashamed to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and has been a 
member of Congress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling 
you about parliamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than 
to try to palm off his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audience. 
The Nebraska Bill provided that the legislative power, and authority of the 
said territory, should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent 
with the organic act and the Constitution of the United States. It did not 
make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possible 
for Congress to give, without violating the Constitution, to the territorial 
Legislature, with no exception or limitation on the subject of slavery at all. 
The language of that bill which I have quoted gave the full power and the 
full authority over the subject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to 
introduce it or exclude it so far as the Constitution of the United States 
would permit. What more could Mr. Chase give by his amendment? 
Nothing. He offered his amendment for the identical purpose for which Mr. 
Lincoln is using it, to enable demagogues in the country to try and deceive 
the people. His amendment was to this effect. It provided that the Leg- 
islature should have the power to exclude slavery ; and General Cass sug- 
gested, ' Why not give the power to introduce as well as exclude ?' The 
answer was, they have the power already in the bill to do both. Chase was 
afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition 
and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield. He offered it for the 
purpose of having it rejected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over 



428 LIFE Or STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. He expected 
that it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they 
would make an effort to deceive the people with it, and he was not mis- 
taken, for Lincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that 
the Nebraska Bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all the power which 
the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more ? Could 
Congress go beyond the Constitution of the country ? "We gave all, a full 
grant, with no exception in regard to slavery one way or the other. We 
left that question as we left all others, to be decided by the people for them- 
selves, just as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I 
have argued it before all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful 
city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the North, the South, the East, and 
the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same principles. I have 
not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be trotted 
down into Egypt. 

" The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, Tf the Supreme Court 
of the United States shall decide that a state of this Union can not exclude 
slavery from its own limits, will I submit to it ? I am amazed that Lincoln 
should ask such a question. (' A school-boy knows better.') Yes, a school- 
boy does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon 
the Supreme Court. He knows that there never was but one man in Amer- 
ica, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment 
pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washington Union, in an article 
published on the 17th of last November, did put forth that doctrine, and I 
denounced the article on the floor of the Senate in a speech which Mr. Lin- 
coln now pretends was against the President. The Union had claimed that 
slavery had a right to go into the free states, and that any provision in the 
Constitution or laws of the free states to the contrary were null and void. I 
denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who 
did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and 
the whole Black Republican side of the Senate were silent. They left it to 
me to denounce it. And what was the reply made to me on that occasion ? 
Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground 
that I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not 
to have replied to it ; that there was not one man, woman, or child South of 
the Potomac, in any slave state, who did not repudiate any such pretension. 
Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he 
asks this question. He might as well ask me, suppose Mr. Lincoln should 
steal a horse, would I sanction it ; and it would be as genteel in me to ask 
him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He 
casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States by sup- 
posing that they would violate the Constitution of the United States. I tell 
him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason 
that no man on the bench could ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln himself 
would never, in his partizan feelings, so far forget what was right as to be 
guilty of such an act. 

" The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is, Are you in favor of acquiring ad- 
ditional territory in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the Union 
on the slavery question ? This question is very ingeniously and cunningly 
put. The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly, that under no cir- 
cumstances shall we acquire any more territory unless slavery is first pro- 
hibited in the country. 1 ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in favor of that 
proposition. Are you (addressing Mr. Lincoln) opposed to the acquisition of 
any more territory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is prohibited in 
it ? That he does not like to answer. When I ask him whether he stands 
up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee-fashion, and 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 429 

without answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of acquiring territory 
without regard to how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. I 
answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to 
acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, without reference to the ques- 
tion of slavery, and when we have acquired it, I will leave the people free 
to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. 

This was the origin and history of the famous questions put 
to Mr. Douglas at Freeport, and of his reply. The answers 
were not exactly what the allies desired. They would have 
preferred that he should repudiate popular sovereignty, be- 
cause they had southern authority and his own entire record to 
produce against him. The fidelity of Mr. Douglas to his own 
and oft-repeated doctrines — to the doctrines he had proclaimed 
in every county in the state during 1856, was looked upon by 
the allies as unpardonable. The scheme to entrap him had failed. 
His reply to Lincoln had a startling effect upon that gentle- 
man. Douglas had refused to bid for the Danite vote by re- 
pudiating his own principles. Lincoln's half-hour rejoinder 
was a failure. He had expected a different answer, and had 
evidently intended in that half hour to expose Douglas' aban- 
donment of popular sovereignty, and perhaps to quote upon 
him Mr. Ore's speech, Mr. Buchanan's letter, and a long list 
of other Democratic authorities. 

Immediately the Republican papers of the state took up the 
matter : they were shocked that Democrats could support a 
man who did not believe the Kansas-Nebraska Act was a 
purely pro-slavery measure ! They read Douglas out of the 
Democratic party I 

The Washington Union took up the Republican cry, that 
Douglas had betrayed the Democratic party at Freeport, and 
the cry was continued from mouth to mouth, until, some time 
in the dog-days of 1859, it was heard for the last time in very 
feeble echoes, somewhere in the remote neighborhood of Grass 
Valley, California. 

On the 23d of February, 1859, Mr. Douglas, in reply to a 
speech made by the Honorable A. G. Brown, of Mississippi, re- 
peated the opinions expressed by him in his speeches in Illinois 
during 1856, 7, and 8, and in Congress from the time of 
the compromise measures of 1850. That speech has been 
w T idely circulated. Attached to the pamphlet edition is an 
appendix, making twenty-two pages of printed matter, in 



430 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. - 

which are grouped extracts fro'm reports made by himself, and 
from speeches made by the Hon. W. A. Richardson, of Illinois, 
Hon. Louis Cass, Hon. Isaac Toucey, Hon. Howell Cobb, Hon. 
John C. Breckinridge, Hon. J. L. Orr, Hon. A. H. Stephens, 
Hon. J. P. Benjamin, Hon. J. M. Mason, Hon. J. A. Bayard, 
Hon. G. E. Badger, Hon. John Pettit, Hon. A. P. Butler, Hon. 
R. M. T. Hunter, Hon. Robert Toombs, Hon. J. A. Smith, Hon. 
A. C. Dodge, Hon. T. F. Bowie, Hon. G. W. Jones, Hon. J. N". 
Elliott, Hon. J. S. Caskie, Hon. A. G. Brown, Hon. W. C. Daw- 
son, Hon. T. L. Clingman, Hon. Z. Kidwell, Hon. C. J. Faulk- 
ner, Hon. J. H. Lumpkin, Hon. A. G. Talbott, Hon. Moses 
Norris, Hon. J. B. Weller, Hon. W. H. English, Hon. M. 
Macdonald, Hon. J. R. Thomson, Hon. R. Brodhead, Hon. W. 
Bigler, Hon. L. O'B. Branch, and Hon. Harry Hibbard ; also from 
the Cincinnati platform, and the letter of Mr. Buchanan accept- 
ing the nomination — all showing the interpretation placed 
upon the Kansas-Nebraska Act by these gentlemen at the 
time of its passage and subsequently to its going into effect. 
That speech and appendix present a compendium of authority 
upon the proper construction to be placed upon the language 
of the act. Mr. Douglas demonstrates in that speech that the 
" unsound doctrines" of his Freeport address were not new, 
but were of very ancient date, and thoroughly understood by 
the Senate and the country. 

The next joint debate took place at Jonesboro, in Egypt, 
on the 15th of September; the fourth at Charleston, in the 
seventh district, on the 18th. The fifth took place at Gales- 
burg, in Knox county — strongly abolition — on October 7th ; 
the sixth at Quincy, on the 13th, and the last at Alton, on 
the 15th. 

Between these periods both candidates were busily engaged. 
Lyman Trumbull was also at work. His speeches were neither 
argumentative nor poetical ; they were not devoted to the ad- 
vocacy of Lincoln or of Republicanism ; they were fierce, ma- 
licious, vituperative, and scandalous denunciations of Judge 
Douglas personally. Trumbull neither served Lincoln nor 
damaged Douglas. He descended to the level of Lieb, Grund, 
and Carpenter ; and at this day of intelligence the people of 
Illinois accept nothing on faith from men of that grade. 

In the meantime the Republican papers kept constantly be- 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 431 

fore the people the famous declaration of the Washington 

Union : 

" Upon the issue of Douglas or Lincoln, Lincoln or Douglas, we confess to 
a serene indifference." 

Chase, of Ohio, Colfax, of Indiana, Blair, of Missouri, H. F. 
Douglas (negro), and other Republican orators, were in Illi- 
nois urging their friends to " kill Douglas" now, or he would 
be President in 1860. 

The Danites were also busy. They had candidates for Con- 
gress in all the districts. They talked of Judge Breese and 
Judge Skinner for the Senate. They had candidates for the 
Legislature in every district, except those which were over- 
whelmingly Democratic, and in these districts they united 
with the Republicans. In the close districts they were par- 
ticularly active, and, to their own eternal shame, succeeded in 
electing four Republicans to the Legislature, where by a 
united vote Democrats could have been chosen. It is but just, 
however, to say, that the major portion of these men have 
since regretted their conduct, and are now warm friends and 
supporters of the Democratic organization. 

The Washington Union throughout all this season continued 
its wholesale denunciation of Mr. Douglas. On the 3d of 
September it charged Douglas with degrading the office of 
senator by addressing the people of his own state in defense 
of his own official conduct, and in opposition to Republicanism. 
The Danites at an early day announced a " tremendous mass 
meeting," to come off at the state capital on September 7th ; 
and handbills, printed in a variety of colors, announced that the 
" Hon. John C. Breckinridge, Vice-President of the United 
States, would address the meeting," and denounce the Democ- 
racy of Illinois. The mass meeting came off, but beyond a few 
hundred office-holders and expectants, no one attended, not 
even to hear Mr. Breckinridge upon that subject. The use 
of Mr. Breckinridge's name by these disorganizes was wholly 
unauthorized. In October following he timidly published a 
letter declaring his earnest hope that the Democracy of Illinois 
would sustain their regular nominees, including Mr. Doug- 
las. This letter of Mr. Breckinridge, as well as an eloquent 
and stirring one from Governor Wise, were both written and 
published long after the Freeport speech, the doctrines of 



432 LITE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

which have been represented since then as a justification for an 
unmanly and vindictive assault upon Mr. Douglas. All honor 
and credit to the illustrious Virginian who, rising above the 
petty instigations of rivalry, had the courage and independence 
to declare that he did not desire the election of Lincoln, and 
did desire the election of Douglas, the chosen leader of the 
Illinois Democracy. The Hon. James B. Clay, of Kentucky, 
also sent to his Democratic brethren of Illinois words of ap- 
proval and of encouragement. The Hon. A. H. Stephens, of 
Georgia, was in Chicago during the summer, and an attempt 
was made by the Danites to use his name in approval of their 
proceedings. This, however, was unjust to that gentleman : 
he never, by word or deed, approved the election of the Re- 
publican candidates. 

The labors of the campaign were excessive. The weather 
up to the tenth of October was oppressively warm. The most 
of Judge Douglas' appointments after that date were in north- 
ern Illinois. Then the weather changed; a cold blustering 
wind, often accompanied with rain, continued until the close. 
At Geneseo and Rock Island, where Mr. Douglas spoke on the 
Thursday and Friday preceding the election, it rained hard all 
day, yet he was listened to by thousands, many of whom had 
come hundreds of miles to hear him. On Saturday night, 
October 31, he reached Chicago pretty well fatigued, and 
voice almost exhausted from speaking so often in the open 
air, and exposed to the heavy rain. Sunday was a day of re- 
pose, and one he much needed. On Monday night he was 
again called out to address a mass meeting in Chicago, but a 
rain storm prevented his saying much. 

Tuesday, at an early hour, the city was alive. Throughout 
the state an unusual excitement prevailed. In Chicago a rain 
continued at intervals all day. It is unnecessary to state here 
that the Republicans resorted to every possible means in the 
way of secret circulars to injure Mr. Douglas by representing 
him as being a Know-Nothing, and a Republican. All such 
attempts failed. The fate of Lincoln was sealed by the discus- 
sion at Ottawa, and nothing but a special interposition of Pro- 
vidence could have elected a Legislature favorable to his elec- 
tion to the Senate. 



THE CAMPAIGN OF 1858. 433 

It only remains to add the result of the election : 

Upon the state ticket the vote was — 

Fondey, Democrat 121,609 

French " 122,413 

Average democratic vote 122,011 

Dougherty, Danite. 5,071 

Total democratic vote 127,082 

Miller, Republican 125,430 

Bateman " 124,556 

Average republican vote ' 124,993 

Democratic majority in the state 2,089 

The Danite organs in the state, after the election, apologized 
and accounted for the smallness of their vote, by saying that 
the great bulk of their party, failing to see any other mode of 
" killing Douglas," had voted the Republican ticket direct. 

The Legislature, including those holding over, stood thus : 

Senate. [House. Totals. 

Democrats 14 40 54 

Republicans 11 35 46 

Danites 00. . , 00 00 

Democratic majority on joint ballot 8. 

This was the result of one of the most extraordinary politi- 
cal contests ever had in any state of the Union. It was a 
glorious personal as well as political triumph on the part of 
Mr. Douglas. It demonstrated the unpurchasable integrity of 
the Democracy of Illinois. It showed that they were without 
fear, and were above price. It showed also, and the fact was 
creditable to the intelligence of the American people, that no 
Federal authority can be successfully exercised to defeat the 
will and power of a free people. 

The effort to defeat Mr. Douglas did not end with the de- 
cision of the people in November. It was at once noised 
about that among the Democratic senators holding over, were 
some who were under no obligation to vote for Mr. Douglas, 
and who were disposed to stand by the administration. The 
Legislature did not meet until January. The rumours con- 
cerning the fidelity of certain state senators were taken up 
and vouched for by Republican newspapers, and possibly found 
believers elsewhere. One federal officer in Illinois boasted 
that he held blank commissions to important federal offices, in 
which he was authorized to insert the names of such Demo- 

T 



434 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

cratic senators as would refuse to vote for Douglas. This 
boast was too degrading to the administration to find any 
Democrat in Illinois who would believe it. The effect, how- 
ever, was soon felt. The senators holding over were sterling 
Democrats ; they did not relish the free use of their names by 
the Danite chieftains, and they took occassion to express their 
sentiments very freely and decidedly upon the matter. It was 
stated that, during the interval between the election and the 
meeting of the Legislature, a politician of a neighboring 
state, who had been prominent as an outside friend and sup- 
porter of the Danites, found occasion to cross that part of 
Illinois represented in the state Senate by Captain Coffee, one 
of the best and honestest Democrats in the west. The dis- 
tinguished stranger stopped at a town in the vicinity of Coffee's 
residence and inquired particularly after his health. Coffee 
happened to be away from home at the time, and when he 
returned the landlord told him of the visit made by the "em- 
inent statesman" from another state, and of his particular 
inquiries after Captain Coffee's health. The answer was as em- 
phatic as its purport was unmistakable : he said, "When 

calls here on his way back, you tell him for me, that I am a 
Democrat, and if he dare to ask me to vote against Douglas 
he may be sure that either he or I will be the worst whipped 
man that ever saw the state of Illinois.'* Captain Coffee's 
fidelity was never doubted by any Democrat, indeed his deter- 
mination to vote for Douglas was soon publicly announced, 
and the distinguished gentleman has never returned that way 
since to hear any additional particulars touching Captain Cof- 
fee's health, which it is hoped may never be anything else than 
in a high state of preservation. 

According to custom the Democratic members of the Legis- 
lature met in caucus the night before the organization. 
Douglas was nominated by acclamation, and three days there- 
after was, in joint meeting, re-elected United States senator. 



DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. 435 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. 

Me. Douglas was first married on the 7th of April, 1847, in 
Rockingham county, North Carolina, to Miss Martha Denny 
Martin, only daughter of Col. Robert Martin, of that county. 
With his bride he returned to the State of Illinois, whose 
senator he had become but a month previously. Everywhere 
during his tour he was greeted with affection by his constitu- 
ents, with all the attention that friendship could suggest, and 
all the respect which the gentleness and amiability of his ac- 
complished bride could not fail to inspire. Her gentleness, 
and her strong native good judgment were of great service to 
him in many a season of perplexing and troublesome excite- 
ment. She made home an abiding place of peace and tran- 
quility, where all the associations were of a refined and Chris- 
tian character. In extending hospitality to the multitudes 
who thronged her husband's mansion, she was judicious and 
yet munificent. She won the respect of all his friends, and 
divided with him their unbounded admiration. After a happy 
life of nearly six years with a husband whose interest was 
the object of her wordly life, she died at his residence in 
Washington City, on the 19th of January, 1853, leaving three 
children, two boys, and one girl, the latter an infant, who sur- 
vived its mother but a few months. The two boys are now 
bright, active, intelligent youths, and reside with their father. 

In November, 1856, Mr. Douglas was married at Washing- 
ton City to Miss Adele Cutts, the beautiful and accom- 
plished daughter of Hon. James Madison Cutts, long a resi- 
dent of that city. 

DOUGLAS' PLANTATION AND SLAVES. 

In speaking of the domestic affairs of Judge Douglas, it 
may not be out of place to introduce and dispose of a matter 
which on frequent occasions has served his political and per- 
sonal enemies with a pretext for the most unscrupulous abuse. 
That matter is his " ownership of slaves." 

In 1847, on the day after his marriage, Colonel Martin 



436 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

placed in Mr. Douglas' hands a sealed package of papers. 
Upon an examination of these papers Mr. Douglas found 
among them a deed of certain plantations, including the ser- 
vants upon them, in the State of Mississippi, which deed 
vested the title to both land and servants in him absolutely. 
He at once, without one moment's hesitation, sought Colonel 
Martin and returned him the deed, stating that while he was 
no abolitionist, and had no sympathy with them in their wild 
schemes and ultra views respecting slavery, yet he was a 
northern man by birth, education and residence, and was to- 
tally ignorant of that description of property, and as ignorant 
of the manner and rules by which it should be governed, and 
was therefore wholly incompetent to take charge of it and per- 
form his duty towards it properly, particularly at a distance 01 
fifteen hundred miles from where he resided, and where he 
should continue to reside at all times with the people to whom 
he owed so much. He said that he preferred Colonel Martin 
should retain the property, at least during his lifetime, and if 
in the meantime no disposition was made of it, he could then 
by will leave directions as to the manner in which he desired 
it disposed -of. 

Colonel Martin died on the 25th of May, 1848, leaving a 
will in which he provided for the disposal of his entire estate. 
In this will he recited the fact that he had a year previously 
offered the plantations in Mississippi, with the slaves upon them, 
to his son-in-law, Stephen A. Douglas, who had declined to re- 
ceive them. He then declared substantially, that in the event 
of the death of his daughter, Martha D. Douglas, leaving sur- 
viving children, it was his wish and desire that the slaves upon 
those Mississippi plantations should remain and continue the 
property of those children ; and he willed this in the firm 
belief that the negroes would be better off and better cared 
for as slaves in the family in which they had been born and 
raised than if set at liberty and sent to the free states ; but 
he provided, that in the event of his said daughter dying, leav- 
ing no surviving children, the negroes should be sent to the 
coast of Africa and should be supported there one year, at 
the expense of his estate, and then be declared free. 

This is the entire history of the manner in which Mr. Doug 
las became " the owner of plantations stocked with slaves ;" 
and of the manner and the reasons by which the ownership of 



DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. 437 

the slaves was continued by their grandfather to the children, 
after Mr. Douglas, for the reasons given, had declined the ab- 
solute gift of the entire property. 

It has been thought proper and just toward Mr. Douglas 
that this matter should be stated clearly and distinctly. At 
the time that Col. Martin made him the valuable present, Mr. 
Douglas was not blessed with an over abundance of treasure. 
As a pecuniary gift this was of great value, and in his circum- 
stances would, if converted into money, have enabled him, by 
judicious investments in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, to 
have laid the foundation for a princely fortune. The gift was 
clogged with no conditions. He was at liberty to convert 
plantations and slaves into cash at any moment. How many 
of those who have denounced him as a slaveholder, as being 
the " owner of human beings," and the " proprietor of human 
chattels," would have resisted the offer that he declined, is a 
question which the observer of the general hollo wness of abo- 
lition pretensions will have no difficulty in answering. 

A senator from Ohio, with a want of taste, a want of a be- 
coming sense of the proprieties of life, shortly after the death 
of Mrs. Douglas, was shameless enough to introduce the mat- 
ter into a debate in the Senate. The remarks made by Mr. 
Wade on that occasion elicited the following feeling, touch- 
ing, manly reply from Mr. Douglas : 

"Mr. President, the senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] has 
invaded the circle of my private relations in search of materials 
for the impeachment of my official action. He has alluded to 
certain southern interests which he insinuates that I possess, 
and remarked, that where the treasure is there the heart is 
also. So long as the statement that I was one of the largest 
slaveholders in America was confined to the abolition news- 
papers and stump orators I treated it with silent contempt. 
I would gladly do so on this occasion, were it not for the fact 
that the reference is made in my presence by a senator for the 
purpose of imputing to me a mercenary motive for my official 
conduct. Under these circumstances, silence on my part in 
regard to the fact might be construed into a confession of guilt 
in reference to the impeachment of motive. I therefore say 
to the senator that his insinuation is false, and he knows it to 
be false, if he has ever searched the records or has any reliable 
information upon the subject. I am not the owner of a slave, 



438 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and never have been, nor have I ever received and appropri- 
ated to my own use one dollar earned by slave labor. It is 
true that I once had tendered to me, under circumstances 
grateful to my feelings, a plantation with a large number of 
slaves upon it, which I declined to accept, not because I had 
any sympathy with abolitionists or the abolition movement, 
but for the reason that, being a northern man by birth, by 
education and residence, and intending always to remain such, 
it was impossible for me to know, understand, and provide for 
the wants, comforts and happiness of those people. I refused 
to accept them because I was unwilling to assume responsibili- 
ties which I was incapable of fulfilling. This fact is referred to 
in the will of my father-in-law as a reason for leaving the plan- 
tation and slaves to his only daughter, (who became the mother 
of my infant children), as her separate and exclusive estate, 
with the request that if she departed this life without surviving 
children the slaves should be emancipated and sent to Liberia 
at the expense of her estate ; but in the event she should leave 
surviving children, the slaves should descend to them, under 
the belief, expressed in the will, that they would be happier 
and better off with the descendants of the family, with whom 
they had been born and raised, than in a distant land where 
they might find no friend to care for them. This brief state- 
ment, relating to private and domestic affairs, (which ought to 
be permitted to remain private and sacred), has been extorted 
and wrung from me with extreme reluctance, even in vindica- 
tion of the purity of my motives in the performance of a high 
public trust. As the truth compelled me to negative the in- 
sinuation so offensively made by the senator from Ohio, God 
forbid that I should be understood by any one as being willing 
to cast from me any responsibility that now does, or ever has 
attached to any member of my family. So long as life shall 
last — and I shall cherish with religious veneration the memory 
and virtues of the sainted mother of my children — so long as 
my heart shall be filled with parental solicitude for the happi- 
ness of those motherless infants, I implore my enemies, who so 
ruthlessly invade the domestic sanctuary, to do me the favor 
to believe that I have no wish, no aspiration, to be considered 
purer or better than she who was, or they who are, slave- 
holders. 

" Sir, whenever my assailants shall refuse to accept a like 



DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. 439 

amount of this species of property tendered to them, under 
similar circumstances, and shall perform a domestic trust with 
equal fidelity and disinterestedness, it will be time enough for 
them to impute mercenary motives to me in the performance 
of my official duties." 

The " ownership of slaves" has for several years been one 
of the favorite themes upon which the lower and more disre- 
putable class of the opposition have loved to dilate in denounc- 
ing Douglas to sympathetic audiences. Men of respectability, 
even among the abolitionists, have ceased to discourse of it. 
But in 1858, in the memorable contest to which a proper share 
of this book is devoted, the matter was revived and assumed 
a new and more intensified color by men who, in uniting with 
the abolitionists to accomplish a common end, felt compelled 
to resort to fabrications which no honorable Republican would 
stoop to invent. 

It will be remembered that Illinois during that year was 
visited by several distinguished men, some of whom had such 
a profound regard for the rights of the South that they sought 
the election of Lincoln, with his negro equality doctrines, by 
the defeat of Douglas. In the list of statesmen who found, 
during 1858, a hitherto unknown salubriousness in the air of 
the northwest, was the Hon. John Slidell of Louisiana, who 
being, as was well known, or at least, as it was supposed, a 
friend, confident, and adviser of the President in the days of 
the Danite rebellion, attracted by his venerable appearance, as 
well as by the classic purity of his language upon the subject 
of Douglas' reelection, the especial regard of the entire Danite 
faction, and of the more numerous and respectable party, the 
Republicans. It was understood — and when we say under- 
stood we mean that it was openly declared by the President's 
followers that Mr. Slidell was the main instrument by which 
certain changes in the federal offices in Illinois had been made. 
Dr. Daniel Brainard, surgeon to the marine hospital, owed 
his appointment to the united and friendly exertions of Francis 
J. Grund, and Senator John Slidell. Par nobile fratrum I 
Immediately after Mr. Slidell's final leave of Chicago it was 
stated upon the streets and in public places that Senator 
Douglas (then absent in other parts of the state) was not only 
a slaveholder, but one that had no parallel in wickednesss, even 
in Uncle Tom's Cabin. We will not repeat the stories which 



440 LIPE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

were upon the lips of every one, because they eventually took 
shape, and appeared in a public and formal allegation. A few 
weeks before the election the leading Republican paper in Chi- 
cago charged that Mr. Douglas spent in riotous living an im- 
mense annual revenue, derived from his plantations in Missis- 
sippi ; and not content with thus profiting by his property in 
human beings — his equals in all human attributes — he ne- 
glected them, placed them under cruel and tyrannical masters, 
who denied to the poor slaves food enough to keep them from 
suffering, and clothing enough to hide their nakedness. Upon 
this statement of facts, for which the authority of a distin- 
guished southern senator was claimed, the paper produced a 
sensation article, which was extensively copied throughout all 
Illinois and the northwest. Mr. Douglas was absent from 
Chicago, and did not see the charge until after the election. 
Both Republican and administration orators made the most 
of the horrid condition of "Douglas' slaves;" and the gentle- 
man to whom Mr. Douglas had intrusted the care and man- 
agement of his children's estate was held up to the people as a 
monster of wickedness, and as a demon in cruelty. 

The writer of these pages heard the same story repeated at 
a Republican convention in Chicago in September Or October, 
1858, by one of the persons nominated as a candidate for the 
Legislature. The candidate stated that there could be no 
doubt of the facts, for they were derived from a very distin- 
guished southern man who had lately been in Chicago. 

In the meantime the story had reached New Orleans, there 
attracting much attention. The authors of the story seemed 
to have overlooked the possibility that there would be ulti- 
mately an exposure of its want of truth. The New Orleans 
Picayune first noticed it, and pronounced it " an election 
canard." The Chicago Press and Tribune at once responded 
as follows : 

" We have only to say that the story came to us from a per- 
sonal friend of Mr. Slidell — a gentleman of character and influ- 
ence in this city — and he assured us that he had the statement 
from Slidell himself, during his visit to Chicago, while the late 
canvass was going on. His name is at the service of any one 
authorized to demand it." 

The Democratic paper at Chicago at once demanded the 
name of the " gentleman of character" who had made the 



DOMESTIC AFFAIRS. 441 

statement. Upon the streets the name was publicly men- 
tioned, but it had not been given up by the Press and Tribune. 
At last it was charged that Dr. Daniel Brainard, a federal 
office-holder, was the man. \ 

On the \&th of December Mr. Slidell published in the 
Washington Union a denial of having ever told Dr. Brainard 
or any one else such a story. He said : 

I am constrained to believe either that Dr. Brainard did not make the 
statement attributed to him by the Chicago Press and Tribune, or that he has 
been guilty of a deliberate and malicious falsehood. I have no recollection 
of ever having spoken of Mr. Douglas' slaves ; it is possible that I may have 
been asked if he had any property of that description. If so, I could only 
have answered that they were employed in cotton-planting on the Mississippi 
river, and were in possession of an old and valued friend, James A. McHat- 
ton, than whom a more honorable man or better master cannot be found in 
Louisiana." 

On the 23d of December Dr. Brainard addressed a note to 
the editors of the Press and Tribune^ denying having ever 
made the statements imputed to him. In the issue of that 
paper of December 24 the editors lifted the veil and exposed 
the whole fabrication. That paper said : 

" We have on two occasions promised that, when called upon by one au- 
thorized to ask the name of the gentleman who related to us, on the author- 
ity of Mr. John Slidell, the story of the ill-treatment of Mr. Douglas' slaves, 
we would give it to the public. Mr. Slidell in his card above makes no de- 
mand of the kind ; but as he denounces as a falsehood the story itself, we 
are impelled to make the following statement : 

" In July last, about the time of Mr. Slidell's visit to Chicago, one of the 
editors of this paper was informed by Dr. Daniel Brainard, Professor of Sur- 
gery in the Rush Medical College, in a conversation invited by the doctor 
himself, in his own office, that Mr. Douglas' slaves in the South were ' the 
subjects of inhuman and disgraceful treatment — that they were hired out to 
a factor at fifteen dollars per annum each — that he, in turn, hired them out 
to others in lots, and that they were ill-fed, over-worked, and in every way 
so badly treated that they were spoken of in the neighborhood where they 
are held as a disgrace to all slaveholders and the system they support.' The 
authority given for these alleged facts, by Dr. Brainard, was the Hon. John 
Slidell, of Louisiana. 

****** 

" At that time, Dr. Brainard suggested that the case as stated was a proper 
one for newspaper comment ; and he urged that Mr. Douglas should be de- 
nounced in the Press and Tribune for his inhumanity. Just before election, 
on the authority above stated, we did comment upon Mr. Douglas' share in 
this matter with considerable severity. Out of the article in which he was 
rebuked this controversy has grown. 

" We had no doubt at the time this conversation took place, and have no 
doubt now, that Dr. Brainard was honest and truthful in his relation. We 

T2 



442 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

believe him to be a gentleman, at least the equal of John Slidell in ability 
and veracity. If we are mistaken in our recollection, that he had the par- 
ticulars recited from Mr. Slidell himself, he will no doubt inform us and Mr. 
Slidell from whom he had them, and we shall then be one step nearer the 
author of a tale, which, according to Mr. Slidell's latest testimony,' is false." 

On December 28th Brainard published another letter, in 
which he admitted that he had had conversations with the 
editors of the Republican paper about the hardships, etc., of 
"Douglas' slaves," but denied having given Mr. Slidell as an 
authority. There the matter ended. The story failed to ac- 
complish its original purpose, viz., to defeat Douglas' election. 
It resulted in obtaining Mr. Slidell's testimony that the slaves 
were in the possession of a gentleman " than whom a more 
honorable man or better master cannot be found in Louisiana." 
It also resulted in a question of veracity between two leaders 
of Douglas' active opponents — the Republican editor, and Dr. 
Brainard, a federal office-holder. Upon the subject there never 
has been and is now but one opinion in Chicago. Hundreds 
had heard the story as published by the Republican paper, and 
until Mr. Slidell's letter of denial no one had ever doubted 
that he had authorized it. This having been the most violent, 
will possibly be the last paroxysm of abolition regard for the 
moral and physical condition of " Douglas' plantation of human 
chattels." The total failure of the attempt to injure Mr. 
Douglas before his constituents by this malicious fabrication 
was but a sorry return for the self-abasement committed by 
those who participated in repeating the slander. Dr. Brainard 
still holds federal office in Chicago. He has never given up 
the name of his authority, and the point whether he did not 
furnish Mr. Slidell's name in the first instance is involved in a 
question of veracity between him and the Republican editor. 
The public have never doubted on which side was the truth. 

Mr. Douglas is the owner of a very large landed estate in 
Illinois. His grounds at " Cottage Grove," near the southern 
limits of Chicago, are extensive and very valuable. In 1 856 
he deeded ten acres of this valuable land— worth possibly six 
thousand dollars an acre— to the Trustees of the Chicago Uni- 
versity, an institution organized under the auspices and patron- 
age of the Baptist denomination. Upon this land thus donated 
has already been erected a portion of the University buildings, 
and already a large class of students, under the direction of an 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 443 

accomplished faculty, are receiving instruction. The corner- 
stone of the University was laid with appropriate honors on 
the 4th of July, 1856, and the ceremonies were attended by 
an immense concourse of people. 

In 1856 Mr. Douglas disposed of one hundred acres of land 
on the western limits of Chicago, for the round sum of 
$100,000. His contributions that year in aid of the election 
of Mr. Buchanan, particularly to aid the Democracy in carry- 
ing Pennsylvania, were liberal in the extreme. In Illinois he 
was present in person ; he was aided by Richardson, Harris, 
McClernand, Morris, Marshall, Shaw, Smith, Logan and a host 
of Democrats ; and though Illinois, unlike Pennsylvania, had 
no candidate on the national ticket, still when called upon by 
Douglas and his friends, gave to the son of Pennsylvania a free, 
unbought, and generous support — a support that no expendi- 
ture of money could have obtained — a support given volunta- 
rily by intelligent freemen to the candidates of their party, 
pledged to sustain the cherished principles of the Democratic 
platform. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

VARIOUS MATTERS. 



In the spring of 1853 Mr. Douglas visited Europe, and spent 
several months in personal observation of the practical work- 
ings of the various systems of government. He stayed a con- 
siderable time in England, and though he had the pleasure and 
honor of being presented to several of the monarchs of Europe, 
it was done at no sacrifice of personal independence or yield- 
ing of American principle. 

THE AMERICAN COSTUME. 

He was presented to the Emperor of Russia, and was not 
presented to the Queen of England. The circumstances at- 
tending his success in the one case, and his failure in the other, 
furnish a practical lesson of the respect due to national eti- 
quette. 

When he was in London there were several eminent gentle- 
men of the United States there at the same time ; these as 
well as Mr. Douglas were about to be presented to her majesty 



444 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

at the next reception. . When the time came, there came also 
the inexorable requirement that the Americans must put off 
that costume and dress which is universal at home, and put on 
another which is entirely discarded in their own country. Mr. 
Douglas protested, as did also his countrymen, but the require- 
ments of royal etiquette could not be evaded. The alternative 
was to submit to a change of costume, or be denied a presenta- 
tion to the queen. Mr. Douglas accepted the latter, and his 
companions put on the dress required by the court ; they were 
presented and he was not. 

Subsequently he visited St. Petersburg, and for two weeks 
examined personally all the public institutions of the capital, 
and sought a thorough knowledge of the manners, laws and 
government of that city and of the empire. He had not made 
known his official position. After this time he left his card at 
the residence of Count TsTesselrode, and promptly received a 
cordial and pressing invitation to that minister's palace. The 
interview was a pleasant and agreeable one; the political 
affairs of the United States and of Europe were discussed un- 
reservedly and with mutual gratification. At this, or a subse- 
quent interview, Mr. Douglas announced his intended depart- 
ure from the city, when Count Nesselrode inquired if he did 
not desire a presentation to the emperor. Mr. Douglas ex- 
pressed the great pleasure such an honor would be to him, but 
suggested the difficulty of the " court dress." Count Nessel- 
rode, after some consultation upon this point, frankly told Mr. 
Douglas that he was right; that a citizen of the United States 
entitled to be presented to a monarch in Europe, if received at 
all should be received in that dress in which he would be ad- 
mitted to the presence of the President of the United States, 
and added that if Mr. Douglas desired to be presented to the 
emperor he could possibly arrange the interview within a few 
days. 

Mr. Douglas thanked his distinguished friend for his kind- 
ness to him personally, and also for his manly and honorable 
tribute to the dignity of American citizenship. 

The result was that in a few hours Mr. Douglas was visited 
by an officer of the imperial household, with a notice that he 
would be received by the emperor. Mr. Douglas had the good 
fortune to be placed in the hands of Baron Stoeckle, who is 
well known in the United States from his official position in 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 445 

the Russian embassy at Washington. The emperor was at 
that time celebrating, at some distance from St. Petersburg, a 
grand Russian national festival, and was reviewing the impe- 
rial army. Accompanied by Baron Stoeckle, Mr. Douglas 
proceeded in an imperial carriage and under an imperial escort 
to the neighborhood of the camp, where he left the carriage 
and proceeded on horseback towards the position on the field 
occupied by the emperor. At a proper distance he was met 
by officers of the imperial staff and conducted to the emperor. 

He was the only American present at that magnificent dis- 
play of the power and wealth of the empire ; representatives 
from all quarters of the world were present to witness one of 
the grandest festivals of Russia, graced by the presence of the 
imperial household and of all the most distinguished individuals 
of the empire, and yet into this scene of royal magnificence 
Mr. Douglas was admitted and welcomed with a frank cor- 
diality by the emperor, in the same black suit of cloth in which, 
just before his departure, he had visited Franklin Pierce. 

The rule asserted by Mr. Douglas and confirmed and ap- 
proved by Count Nesselrode — the veteran diplomatist and 
most eminent statesman of Europe — is the true one. Ameri- 
cans are the only people who are required to put on a mas- 
querade dress to obtain admission to the presence of the Queen 
of England. The rule that persons of all nationalities may 
be admitted in that costume in which they would be received 
by their own sovereign is observed toward all persons except 
citizens of the United States. They are excepted. An officer 
in the service of a petty prince of a German kingdom, if pre- 
sented, can obtain audience in the same suit that he would ap- 
pear in before his prince, but an American will be excluded 
unless he puts off the dress in which he was admitted to the 
table of the President of the United States, and puts on the 
tinseled toggery prescribed by authority. 

Against this unjust discrimination between his countrymen 
and citizens of other nations Mr. Douglas protested, and 
preferred a total exclusion from the presence of royalty to a 
submission to any such degrading rule. 

Mr. Douglas visited Sebastopol and all the scenes shortly 
after made historical by the war then gathering in Europe. He 
visited all the principal points on the continent, storing his mind 
with practical information concerning the commerce, laws, 



446 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and governments of the countries in which he sojourned, in- 
formation which has since proved of great advantage to him. 
His descriptions of what he saw in Europe, his conversations 
and interviews with the great and illustrious men whom he 
met during his trip, are of the most entertaining and instruc- 
tive character. No one who has ever enjoyed an evening with 
him, when he discoursed of these things, has ever failed in ex- 
pressing the delight and gratification afforded by Mr. Douglas 7 
graphic delineations of men, and his charming pictures of scenes 
and events in Europe. 

ME. DOUGLAS AND THE PEESIDENCY. 

In 1848 the Democratic State Convention in Illinois unan- 
imously recommended Mr. Douglas as a candidate for the 
presidency. He was then but thirty-five years of age, and had 
already attracted the attention of the nation by his abilities 
and great success as an orator. His services in Congress, dur- 
ing the four years he was a member of the House, and his one 
year's service in the Senate, had recommended him most 
strongly to a very large portion of the people of the country, 
as a man possessing more of the natural characteristics of 
Jacksonian power and Democracy than any other statesman. 

Mr. Douglas, however, was a friend and supporter of Gen- 
eral Cass. The doctrines declared in the celebrated Nichol- 
son letter were doctrines of pure popular sovereignty. As in 
1856, so in 1848, he preferred infinitely a platform embodying 
correct principles to any personal honors or distinctions. He 
and his friends were warm supporters of General Cass for the 
nomination. 

The result of that convention is well known. The names 
of Buchanan, Woodbury, Calhoun, Dallas, Worth, and others 
were presented. The two-thirds rule was in force. On the 
first ballot Mr. Cass received 125 votes, Mr. Buchanan, 93, Mr. 
Woodbury, 58, and the other votes, making up the aggregate 
of 253, were scattered. Gen. Cass lacked 45 votes of having 
two-thirds, and two votes of a majority. On the second bal- 
lot he received 133, being a majority, but still less than two- 
thirds. The friends of other candidates then seeing that the 
distinguished statesman of Michigan was the choice of a ma- 
jority, after the third ballot, yielded to what was the expressed 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 447 

wishes of a majority, and gave him on the 4th ballot the 
required two-thirds vote, and then nominated him by accla- 
mation. 

In 1852 the Democracy of Illinois again recommended Mr. 
Douglas to the Democracy of the nation for the Presidency ; 
other states did the same. The Convention met at Baltimore, 
and having adopted the two-thirds rule proceeded to a ballot. 
The following ballotings will exhibit the state of the vote dur- 
ing the protracted contest. 



1st. 

Cass, 116 

Buchanan, 93 

Douglas, 20 

Marcy, 27 

Butler, 2 

Houston, 3 

Pierce, 


11th. 

101 

87 


31st. 

64 

79 


48th. 

73 

28 


50 

27 

1 

8.. ., 




92 

26 

. .16 


38 

90 

1 


10 




6 

55 



On the next ballot Gen. Pierce received 283 votes, and was 
then unanimously nominated. It will be seen that until the 
49th ballot no candidate had received a majority of the Con- 
vention ; had Mr. Buchanan, or Mr. Marcy, or Mr. Cass ob- 
tained a majority, the friends of the other candidates would 
undoubtedly have yielded their individual preferences, and 
given him the required two-thirds vote. 

In 1856 the ever memorable Cincinnati Convention met in 
June. The two-thirds rule was again adopted. Mr. Douglas 
had been recommended by the conventions of several states, 
but as this was the first National Convention of the Democra- 
cy since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he was more 
solicitous for the adoption of a platform that would approve 
the principles of that measure than he was for the nomination. 
His name, however, was submitted to the Convention by his 
friends. There were but four names before the Convention- 
Messrs. Buchanan, Pierce, Douglas, and Cass. The whole 
number of votes was 296, of which 149 would be a majority, 
and 198 two-thirds. There were seventeen ballotings. On 
the first ballot Mr. Buchanan had 135, Mr. Pierce 122, Mr. 
Douglas 33, Mr. Cass 6. On the thirteenth ballot, Mr. Bu- 
chanan received 150 votes, being a majority, and the first time 
that a majority vote had been obtained by any one. Mr. 
Douglas was at Washington, and the result of the several bal- 
lotings was announced in that city as soon as made. The 



448 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Convention adjourned that day without making a nomination, 
and when it assembled next day, the 16th ballot was taken 
with the following result : Buchanan 168, Douglas 122, Cass 6. 
Mr. Buchanan lacked thirty of the required two-thirds vote. 
The Convention was at a " dead lock." 

The eventful scene that took place can hardly be described 
in words. A majority of the delegates had expressed their 
choice ; had recorded their wish for the nomination of Mr. 
Buchanan. It was true the two-thirds rule had been adopted, 
but that rule was never designed or intended to defeat the 
wishes of a majority when once clearly and unmistakably as- 
certained and declared. The vote of the states was announced 
and recorded. The choice of the majority was declared, and 
there were no questions asked whether that majority was 
made up of delegates from Democratic states, or from states 
hopelessly in the power of the opposition. It was regarded as 
the vote of the Democracy of the nation, a vote given by men 
in non-Democratic states as well as in Democratic states, with 
but one purpose and aim, and that was to nominate the man 
who in the estimation of the whole Democracy was the strong- 
est candidate for the time. . Mr. Buchanan's 168 votes on the 
sixteenth ballot were given for him as follows : from states 
that subsequently voted for him for President, 86 ; from states 
that voted for Fremont, 82. Mr. Douglas' 122 votes were 
given him — from states that voted for Buchanan, 84 ; from 
states that voted for Fremont, 38. General Cass received the 
vote of California. A majority of the delegates representing the 
Democratic states voted against Mr. Buchanan on the sixteenth 
ballot; yet, he having a clear majority of the delegates from 
all the states, after the result of that ballot was announced, 
certain proceedings took place which are thus recorded in the 
official report of the action of the Convention: 

"Mr. Preston, of Kentucky, said: Mr. President: As one of the friends of 
Mr. Douglas, I have become sufficiently satisfied, by the evidences presented 
here, that it is the wish of this Convention that James Buchanan should be 
the nominee for President of the United States. I believe that Judge Doug- 
las himself, and the friends of Judge Douglas — and when I say this I speak 
with some degree of knowledge on the subject — I believe that the friends of 
Mr. Douglas will be among the first to come forward, and in a spirit of lib- 
erality put an end to the useless contest. I will now give way to the gen- 
tleman from Illinois, the friend of Mr. Douglas. 

"During Mr. Preston's remarks there were loud expressions of dissatisfac- 
tion and cries of ' No, no !' ' Don't withdraw !' ' Don't withdraw.' 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 449 

* Here W. A. Richardson, of Illinois, arose, and waving his hand, there 
was immediate and general silence. In a solemn and impressive manner 
that gentleman proceeded to address the Convention as follows : 

" Mr. Richardson. Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention : Be- 
fore undertaking to advise any gentleman on this floor what he ought to do, 
I consider that I have a duty which I owe to my constituents, and which, 
since it is now imposed on me, I feel it is due to the Democratic party and 
friends of Stephen A. Douglas that I should discharge. Whatever may be 
the opinion of the gentlemen as to the contest, I am satisfied that I can not 
advance his interests or the interests of the common cause, or the principles 
of the Democratic party, by continuing him in this contest. I will, there- 
fore, state that I have a dispatch from Judge Douglas, which I desire may 
be permitted to be read, and I shall then withdraw his name from before the 
Convention. I desire gentlemen, after that, to decide on what course they 
may deem it proper to pursue. (Tremendous applause — profound sensation.) 

" The dispatch was sent to the chair to be read, and is as follows : 

" ' LETTER OP S. A. DOUGLAS TO W. A. RICHARDSON, OF ILLINOIS. 

" 'Washington, June 4, 1856. 

" • Dear Sir : From the telegraphic reports in the newspapers, I fear that 
an embittered state of feeling is being engendered in the Convention, which 
may endanger the harmony and success of our party. I wish you and all 
my friends to bear in mind that I have a thousand fold more anxiety for the 
triumph of our principles than for my own personal elevation. 

•' ' If the withdrawal of my name will contribute to the harmony of our party 
or the success of our cause, I hope you will not hesitate to take the step. 
Especially it is my desire that the action of the Convention will embody and 
express the wishes, feelings and principles of the Democracy of the Repub- 
lic ; and hence, if Mr. Pierce or Mr. Buchanan, or any other statesman who 
is faithful to the great issue involved in the contest, shall receive a majority 
of the Convention, I earnestly hope that all my friends will unite in insuring 
him two-thirds, and then in making his nomination unanimous. Let no per- 
sonal considerations disturb the harmony or endanger the triumph of our 
principles. S. A. DOUGLAS. 

" ' To Hon. W. A. Richardson, Burnett House, Cincinnati, Ohio.' 

" The reading of this dispatch was interrupted by frequent and tremend- 
ous applause. It was some time before order could be restored. When the 
Convention had subsided into something like order, the president announced 
that they would proceed with the seventeenth ballot." 

On the next, or seventeenth ballot, Mr. Buchanan was nom- 
inated unanimously. The friends of Mr. Douglas at once con- 
ceding the justice of the suggestions in his letter, that Mr. 
Buchanan having received the votes of a majority of the Con- 
vention ought to be given the required two-thirds. 

On the 4th of January, 1860, the Democratic State Con- 
vention of Illinois, in consequence of the call of the National 
Convention at an earlier day than usual, met some months in 
advance of the ordinary period, to appoint delegates to Charles- 
ton. The Convention was large, harmonious, and included 



450 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

within its members the veterans who had done service in the 
party for twenty or thirty years. The following resolutions, 
reported by a committee of which the Hon. O. B. Ficklin was 
chairman, were adopted unanimously. 

Whereas, The Democratic party assembled in national convention in 
June, 1856, by the unanimous vote of all the delegates from every state in 
the Union, adopted a platform of principles, as the only authoritative expo- 
sition of Democratic doctrines, which remains unaltered and unalterable 
until the meeting of the Charleston convention. 

And whereas, We have good reasons for the belief, that if we depart 
from the doctrines of that platform by attempting to force upon the party 
new issues and tests, the Democracy of the several states may never be able 
to agree upon another platform of principles with the same unanimity. 

And whereas, The Democratic party is the only political organization 
which can maintain in their purity the principles of self-government, the 
reserved rights of the states, and the perpetuity of the Union under the 
Constitution. 

And whereas, The unity, integrity, and supremacy of the Democratic 
party depend upon its faithful adherence to those fundamental principles 
upon which we have achieved so many glorious triumphs, and to which we 
are solemnly and irrevocably pledged. Therefore, 

Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois, in state convention assembled, 
do reassert and affirm the Cincinnati platform, in the words, spirit, and 
meaning with which the same was adopted, understood, and ratified by the 
people in 1856, and do reject and utterly repudiate all such new issues and 
tests as the revival of the African slave trade, or a congressional slave code 
for the territories, or the doctrine that slavery is a federal institution deriving 
its validity in the several states and territories in which it exists from the 
Constitution of the United States, instead of being a mere municipal insti- 
tution, existing in such states and territories " under the laws thereof." 

Resolved, That there can be no exception to the rule that every right guar- 
anteed by the Constitution must be protected by law, in all cases where leg- 
islation is necessary for its protection and enjoyment, and, in obedience to 
this principle, it wa's the imperative duty of Congress to enact an efficient 
law for the surrender of fugitive slaves. 

Resolved, That no considerations of political expediency or partizan policy 
can release any member of Congress or American citizen from his sworn ob- 
ligations of fidelity to the Constitution, or excuse him for not advocating and 
supporting all legislation which may be necessary for the protection and en- 
joyment of every right guaranteed by that instrument. 

Resolved, That the Democratic party of the Union is pledged in faith and 
honor, by the Cincinnati platform and its indorsement of the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act, to the following propositions : 

1st. That all questions pertaining to African slavery in the territories shall 
be for ever banished from the halls of Congress. 

2d. That the people of the territories respectively shall be left perfectly 
free to make just such laws and regulations in respect to slavery and all 
other matters of local concern as they may determine for themselves, sub- 
ject to no other limitations or restrictions than those imposed by the Consti- 
tution of the United States. 

3d. That all questions affecting the validity or constitutionality of any ter- 
ritorial enactments, shall be referred for final decision to the Supreme Court 
of the United States as the only tribunal provided by the Constitution which 
ia competent to determine them. 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 451 

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Democracy of Illinois, Mr. Buchanan 
truly interpreted the Cincinnati platform in his letter accepting the presiden- 
tial nomination, when he said, " the people of a territory, like those of a 
state, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist 
within their limits." 

Resolved, That we recognize the paramount judicial authority of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, as provided in the Constitution, and hold 
it to be the imperative duty of all good citizens to respect and obey the de- 
cision of that tribunal, and to aid, by all lawful means, in carrying them 
into faithful execution. 

Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois repel, with just indignation, the 
injurious and unfounded imputation upon the integrity and impartiality of 
the Supreme Court, which is contained in the assumption on the part of the 
so-called Republicans that, in the Dred Scott case, that august tribunal de- 
cided against the right of the people of the territory to decide the slavery 
question for themselves, without giving them an opportunity of being heard 
by counsel in defense of their rights of self-government, and when there 
was no territorial law, enactment or face before the court upon which that 
question could possibly arise. 

Resolved, That whenever Congress or the Legislature of any state or terri- 
tory shall make any enactment, or do any act which attempts to divest, impair, 
or prejudice any right which the owner of slaves, or any other species of 
property, may have or claim in any territory or elsewhere, by virtue of the 
Constitution or otherwise, and the party aggrieved shall bring his case be- 
fore the Supreme Court of the United States, the Democracy of Illinois, as 
in duty bound by their obligations of fidelity to the Constitution, will cheer- 
fully and faithfully respect and abide by the decision, and use all lawful 
means to aid in giving it full effect according to its true intent and meaning. 

Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois view with inexpressible horror 
and indignation the murderous and treasonable conspiracy of John Brown 
and his confederates to incite a civil insurrection in the slaveholding states ; 
and heartily rejoice that the attempt was promptly suppressed, and the 
majesty of the law vindicated, by inflicting upon the conspirators, after a 
fair and impartial triaL that just punishment which the enormity of their 
crimes so richly merited. 

Resolved, That the Harper's Ferry outrage was the natural consequence 
and logical result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as 
explained and enforced in their platforms, partizan presses, books and pamph- 
lets, and in the speeches of their leaders, in and out of Congress ; and for 
this reason an honest and law-abiding people should not be satisfied with 
the disavowal or disapproval by the Republican leaders of John Brown's 
acts, unless they also repudiate the doctrines and teachings which produced 
those monstrous crimes, and denounce all persons who profess to sympathize 
with murderers and traitors, lamenting their fate and venerating their mem- 
ory as martyrs who lost their lives in a just and holy cause. 

Resolved, That the delegates representing Illinois in the Charleston con- 
vention be instructed to vote for and use all honorable means to secure the 
readoption of the Cincinnati platform, without any additions or subtrac- 
tions. 

Resolved, That no honorable man can accept a seat as a delegate in the 
national Democratic convention, or should be recognized as a member of the 
Democratic party, who will not abide the decisions of such convention and 
support its nominees. 

Resolved, That we affirm and repeat the principles set forth in the resolu- 
tions of the last state convention of the Illinois Democracy, held in this city 



452 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

on the 21st day of April, 1858, and will not hesitate to apply those princi- 
ples wherever a proper case may arise. 

Resolved, That the Democracy of the State of Illinois is unanimously in 
favor of Stephen A. Douglas for the next presidency, and the delegates from 
this state are instructed to vote for him, and make every honorable effort to 
procure his nomination. 

The Democratic State Conventions of Ohio, Indiana, Wiscon- 
sin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa, have since adopted reso- 
lutions substantially of the same character, and in other states, 
where delegates are appointed by districts, resolutions express- 
ing the same doctrine and instructions in favor of Douglas' 
nomination at Charleston have also been adopted. In Penn- 
sylvania, Tennessee, New Jersey and New York, and in other 
states where no expression has been made in favor of any par- 
ticular person for the presidency, the state conventions have 
asserted principles and proclaimed doctrines so much in ac- 
cordance with those of Mr. Douglas, that he and his friends 
would be somewhat embarrassed if forced to chose between 
them, in selecting the particular one they would prefer. The 
resolutions so enthusiastically adopted by the Tennessee Demo- 
cracy in their state Convention are resolutions that can be 
adopted and as heartily and emphatically approved and sus- 
tained by the Democracy of the northwest, as they can be by 
those gallant Democrats who learned Democracy from the 
precept and example of Jackson and Polk. 

THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION IN ILLINOIS. 

As has been stated elsewhere in this volume, there was no 
organization of the Democracy of Illinois until 1837. On the 
22d of July of that year, the Legislature being then in session, 
a meeting of the Democratic members and other Democrats 
was held at the State House in Yandalia to adopt such meas- 
ures as would produce " concert of action" in the party, and 
to enable it to combine all its members against the strong and 
united opposition. A call for a state Convention, to meet at 
Vandalia in December following, was agreed upon, and a com- 
mittee of thirty were selected to prepare and publish an address 
to the people of the state. On that committee were James 
Semple, afterwards United States senator, W. A. Richardson, 
James Shields, now of Minnesota, John A. McClernand, now 
of the House of Representatives, Robert Smith, ex-member 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 453 

of Congress, and other leading Democrats. A Central Com- 
mittee, consisting of five members from each congressional 
district, was also appointed, viz : 1st. W. A. Richardson, J. W. 
Stephenson, E. D. Taylor, Newton Cloud, J. D. Early ; 2d. W. 
L. D. Ewing, William Walters, H. Smith, Joseph Kitchell, Dr. 
Tarney; 3d. H. M. Rollings, H. L.Webb, R. G. Murphy, A. 
M. Jenkins, and S. M. Hubbard. This was the first State 
Committee appointed by the Democracy of Illinois. 

The Convention met in December, 1837, and nominated J. 
W. Stephenson for governor, and J. S. Hacker for lieutenant- 
governor. The candidates having both withdrawn in April, the 
Convention was called to reassemble, and did reassemble, on the 
5th of June, 1838. The Convention nominated Thomas Carlin 
for governor and S. H. Anderson for lieutenant-governor ; and 
appointed as the State Committee V. Hickox, John Taylor, 
Robert Allen, John Calhoun, C. R. Hurst, J. S. Roberts, and 
David Prickett. This committee, in 1839, called a state Con- 
vention, to meet in the December following ; and on the 9th 
of December the second Democratic State Convention in Illi- 
nois met at Springfield, to which place the seat of government 
had been removed. This body appointed as the State Com- 
mittee, until the next state Convention, E. D. Taylor, V. Hickox, 
James Shields, J. R. Diller, M. Carpenter, William Walters, 
and G.R.Webber; and in September, 1841, they issued a 
call for a state Convention to meet in December following. 

On the 13th of December, 1841, the Third Democratic State 
Convention met at Springfield. Having nominated candidates, 
it renewed the state authority by appointing the following 
State Committee : D. B. Campbell, James Shepherd, and G. R. 
Weber, of Sangamon ; James H. Ralston, of Adams ; Thomp- 
son Campbell, of Jo Daviess; N". W. Nunnally, of Edgar ; and 
John A. McClernand, of Gallatin. A. W. Snyder was nomi- 
nated for governor, and John Moore for lieutenant-governor. 
Snyder died during the canvass, and the Hon. Thomas Ford, a 
judge of the Supreme Court, was selected as the candidate in 
his stead. The State Committee appointed by the Convention 
of 1841 called, in 1842, a state Convention (the 4th), to meet 
in February, 1844, to appoint delegates to the Baltimore Con- 
vention. It made no change in the State Committee. 

The Fifth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to the 
call of the committee) on February 10, 1846. It nominated 



454 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

A. C. French for governor, aud Joseph B. Wells for lieutenant- 
governor. It appointed as the State Committee : J. R. Diller, 
William Walters, B. C. Webster, E. D. Jones, Peter Sweat, 
M. McConnell, and John Moore. In 1847, a Convention having 
met and prepared a new Constitution for the state, which went 
into operation in April, 1848, the office of governor was to be- 
come vacant on the 1st of January, 1849. 

The Sixth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to 
the call of the State Committee) on the 24th of April, 1848, 
and nominated A. C. French for reelection as governor, and 
William McMurtry for lieutenant-governor — besides a number 
of candidates for other state offices. It also appointed the 
delegates to the Baltimore Convention. The following gentle- 
men were appointed the State Committee : V. Hickox, of 
Sangamon ; E. F. Sweeney, of Warren ; Thomas Dyer, of Cook ; 
James Bigler, of Brown ; J. P. Cooper, of Clark ; F. D. Pres- 
ton, of Gallatin ; Robert Dunlap, of Madison ; J. R. Diller, of 
Sangamon ; James Dunlap, of Morgan ; H. E. Roberts, of San- 
gamon. 

The Seventh State Convention met (pursuant to the call of 
the State Committee) April 19, 1852. It nominated J. A. 
Matteson for governor, and the full list of candidates for other 
offices. It appointed the delegates to the Baltimore Conven- 
tion, and selected as the State Committee the following gentle- 
men — four from the State at large and one from each Con- 
gressional District, viz. : At large, John A. McClernand, of 
Gallatin ; J. McRoberts, of Will ; C. Sweeney, of Jo 
Daviess, and T. L. Harris, of Menard; 1st district, W. H. 
Snyder, of St. Clair ; 2d district, F. D. Preston, of Jefferson ; 
3d district, B. W. Henry, of Shelby ; 4th district, E. Wilcox, 
of Kane ; 5th district, M. W. Delahay, of Green ; 6th district, 
James Sibley, of Hancock ; 7th district, C. H. Lanphier, of San- 
gamon. 

On the 1st of May, 1856, the Eighth Democratic State 
Convention met (pursuant to the call of the committee) at 
Springfield. The Convention nominated W. A. Richardson 
for governor, and nominated an entire state ticket ; appointed 
delegates to the Cincinnati Convention, and selected the fol- 
lowing State Committee : For the state at large, Alexander 
Starne, and Charles H. Lanphier ; 1st district, F. W. S. Braw- 
ley ; 2d district, John Dement; 3d district, William Reddick; 



VARIOUS MATTERS. 455 

4th district, Robert Holloway; 5th district, W. H. Carlin; 
6th district, Virgil Hickox; 7th district, W. D. Latshaw; 
8th district, A. H. Trapp ; 9th district, S. S. Taylor. 

The Ninth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to 
the call of the above named committee) at Springfield, on the 
21st of April, 1858, and nominated W. B. Fondey for State 
Treasurer and A. C. French for Superintendent of Public In- 
struction. It appointed as the State Committee the following 
persons : At large, John Moore, C. H. Lanphier. 1st district, 
C. J. Horsman ; 2d district, J. W. Sheahan ; 3d district, N". 
Elwood ; 4th district, John McDonald ; 5th district, Alex- 
ander Starne; 6th district, V. Hickox; 7th district, S. A. 
Buckmaster; 8th district, O. B. Ficklin; 9th district, John 
White. 

The Tenth Democratic State Convention met (pursuant to 
the call of the above committee) at Springfield, January 4, 
1860, and appointed delegates to Charleston. The Convention 
did not nominate candidates for state officers, and by resolu- 
tion continued the existing State Committee in office, until 
the meeting of the Convention to be held to nominate candi- 
dates for state offices, and an electoral ticket. 

That committee have called the Eleventh Democratic State 
Convention to meet at Springfield, on the 13th of June, to 
nominate candidates for Governor, Lieutenant-governor, Sec- 
retary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, State Treasurer, 
and Superintendant of Public Instruction, also eleven candi- 
dates for Presidential electors — electors pledged to vote for 
the nominees of the Charleston Convention. 

For twenty-two years the authority of the Democratic State 
Committee has been transmitted in unbroken succession from 
each State Convention to the following one. 



450 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 



CHAPTER XX. 



UTAH AND THE HOEMONS. — MINNESOTA. OEEGON. — SLAVE 

TEADE. 

An attempt has been frequently made by the enemies of 
popular right to show the failure of popular sovereignty by 
pointing to the enormities aud outrages perpetrated by the 
Mormons in Utah. There is no question that the practices in 
Utah are dangerous to the peace of the Union, and dangerous 
to the moral and political character of the republic. That the 
political and social condition of the Mormon settlements in 
Utah are destined to be, especially if weak and timorous coun- 
sels prevail, a source of great vexation and trouble to the 
American people. Polygamy exists in Utah, but polygamy is 
not the result of popular sovereignty. Polygamy existed in 
Utah before the passage of the territorial act of 1850, and 
polygamy will exist among the Mormons so long and wherever 
they have the political power. The Mormons are in a majority 
in Kansas, they constitute so nearly the entire population that 
Utah may be regarded as a Mormon community. They have 
peculiar doctrines, which form part of what they call their 
"religious faith." They have an ecclesiastical organization, 
with its courts, tribunals, officers, decrees, mandates and pun- 
ishments, to all of which the people, as members of a religious 
society, yield implicit obedience. In the list of powers claimed 
and exercised by this ecclesiastical authority is that of sum- 
mary divorce, and of sealing in marriage. It is by the author- 
ity of this theocratical government, which rules above and 
independently of the civil government of the Territory, that 
polygamy and its attendant vices are encouraged, fostered and 
promoted. 

If Utah were a state, we suppose there is no one who would 
admit that Congress or the federal government had the con- 
stitutional power or authority to legislate for the prohibition 
or punishment of polygamy, or any other crime of that nature 
within the limits of the state. It would be one of those in- 
stances where the federal government would be restrained, 
by a total absence of all power, to interpose its authority. 



UTAH AND THE MORMONS. 45*7 

The question whether Congress has the power, or having it 
ought to exercise the power of passing laws for the prohibi- 
tion, or for the protection of particular institutions in the ter- 
ritories is one upon which there is, has been, and possibly will 
always be a variety of opinions. The Mormons, however, are 
not dangerous to the peace of the Union only because of their 
polygamy. That is a social evil, which, however infamous and 
dangerous it may be, is nevertheless one which is confined 
within their own territorial limits, and to their own people, 
There is a large class of people who seem to be horrified at the 
existence of slavery in some of the states, and who do not 
hesitate to attribute to that institution a character as revolting 
in many respects as is attributed to polygamy. Indeed the 
Republican party have in their platform linked slavery and 
polygamy as " twin relics of barbarism," which ought to be 
rooted out by all constitutional means. They disclaim all pur- 
pose of interfering with slavery in the states, and we suppose 
would be equally forbearing to polygamy in the same localities. 
But against both in the territories they propose to wage a 
constant war — an " irrepressible conflict." 

These men represent that in the slaveholding states, mar- 
riage is an institution unknown amongst slaves, and that owners 
have, and exercise the power of giving slave women to men 
as wives, and then of separating them, and forming new 
arrangements by which the husband of one woman is trans- 
ferred to other women, and the wives of certain men trans- 
ferred to other men. The anti-slavery orators affect to see but 
little difference between the moral statutes established amongst 
slaves, and that existing under the polygamous institutions of 
the Mormons. Hence, they style them, " those twin relics of 
barbarism, polygamy and slavery," against whose existence in 
the territories there must ever exist an " irrepressible conflict." 
The Supreme Court has decided that any act of Congress pro- 
hibiting slavery in the territories must be void, but no decision 
in terms that such a power exercised against polygamy has 
been made. Where the power to prohibit slavery is denied, 
and where the power to prohibit polygamy is granted to Con- 
gress by the Constitution, is a question for constitutional law- 
yers to determine. The Democratic party unanimously agree 
that Congress possesses no such power to prohibit slavery; 
and Congress having no power over one of the " twin relics," 



458 LIEE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

it is yet to be determined whether the party agree that Con- 
gress has the power to prohibit the other " twin relic." If 
Congress has no power to prohibit slavery, yet has the power 
to prohibit polygamy or other intercourse between the sexes 
unless sanctioned by marriage, then Congress may, we presume, 
legislate upon the marriage relations to be preserved amongst 
all the slaves who may be taken to the territories, and if Con- 
gress may legislate respecting the marriage relations between 
slaves in the territories, Congress will shortly find that, from 
the same source whence it derives that authority, it can also 
obtain the authority to legislate upon the relation between 
slaves and the white people, and between slaves and their 
owners. The ultimate end to which the doctrine of interven- 
tion by Congress with the internal affairs of the people of the 
territory must lead is evident. It can not be exercised in one 
case without necessarily carrying with it an expression of 
authority to exercise it in all cases. The only safe rule is to 
abstain from the exercise of all doubtful powers and to leave 
the people of the territories, as long as they remain faithful to 
their political obligations, alone to work out their own destiny. 
But, it may be asked, is there no remedy for the evils in 
Utah? Must these Mormons go on in their works of evil 
wholly unchecked and unrestrained by any authority. To 
these questions it is only necessary to say that polygamy is 
not the only crime which the Mormons commit against the 
peace, law, and good order of the republic. They set up their 
ecclesiastical government in open and direct hostility to the 
government of the United States ; they set up the decrees of 
their apostles as the " higher law," which it is their duty as 
well as their pleasure to obey, even when the laws and their 
obligations as citizens of the United States require a different 
rule of government. In short, the Mormons, though living 
upon the soil of the United States, are not of the United States ; 
though living nominally under the government of the United 
States, that government is not their government, but their 
government is another established by themselves, of a social 
and religious character, to which they submit in preference and 
to the exclusion of all other governments. They are a people 
and a government wholly independent in all things of the peo- 
ple and government of the United States, and recognize no 
authority on the part of the government, laws or Constitution 



UTAH AND THE MORMONS. 459 

of the United States to require of them the performance of 
any duty, or abstinence from any acts made unlawful by 
United States law. They are in organization, sentiment and 
feeling, as much and as essentially aliens to the United States 
as if they resided upon the plains of Asia. A territorial gov- 
ernment was established in 1850 for the people of Utah, but 
it was designed and prepared for a people knowing no allegi- 
ance on earth save to the American Union. It was not in- 
tended for a people who repudiate the Constitution and the 
Union, declare themselves free and independent of United 
States authority, and claim for their apostles a power civil and 
religious far above that of the Constitution and government 
of the United States. 

The searcher after an appropriate remedy for the evils in 
Utah will not find a practicable or a sufficient one in the exer- 
cise of the doubtful power of prohibiting polygamy. Let him 
go further and he will find the primal cause for all the abom- 
inations of Utah, and that cause is the entire disloyalty of the 
people ; their utter repudiation of the American Constitution 
and laws, and their total want of political fidelity. The terri- 
torial government was designed for a portion of the American 
people ; the people of Utah are not Americans in any sense 
of the word, they are a distinct race and a separate people, 
having no relations with any other race or people. They are 
a Mormon people, who bid defiance to, and hold in scorn and 
contempt, all other people ; their government is a Mormon 
government, having no relations of any kind, much less 
allegiance to any other government on earth. The existing 
territorial government is used by these men only to draw 
money from the Federal treasury — " quartering upon the Gen- 
tiles" — and to cover up and hide as far as possible their enor- 
mities. The Act of Congress making polygamy a crime will 
be treated as a farce. The jurors and sheriffs and witnesses 
must be Mormons. The party accused of polygamy must be 
indicted by a grand jury each member of which has from five 
to twenty wives; he must next be tried by a jury each mem- 
ber of which has a dozen wives. That will be the practical ex- 
ecution of the act to prohibit one of the twin relics of bar- 
barism. The barbarians will be the judges of each other's 
barbarity. 

The only practical remedy for these evils is to treat these 



460 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

alien barbarians as the government would treat any other na- 
tion of aliens who, settling upon American soil, would raise the 
standard of independence, declare themselves a nation of them- 
selves, and free of all allegiance to the government or people 
of the United States. Since the Mormons will not become 
American citizens, will not subject themselves to American 
laws and American authority, let the territorial government 
be abolished ; let the Mormons become as all other aliens 
would become, mere residents of the territory which is under 
the exclusive control and jurisdiction of the United States, 
and subject beyond all question to the laws of Congress. 

As long ago as June, 1857, Mr. Douglas foresaw the evils 
to result from the persistent refusal of the Mormons to Ameri- 
canize themselves, and he then proposed a remedy which time 
has proved to be the only effective one. In his famous speech 
at Springfield, on the 12th of June, 1857, after having spoken 
of Kansas affairs and the Dred Scott decision, he thus referred 
to matters in Utah : 

Mr. President, I will now respond to the call which has been made upon 
me for my opinion of the condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate 
remedy for existing evils. 

The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the 
Compromise measures of 1850, on the supposition that the inhabitants were 
American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, 
and consequently entitled to the benefits of self-government while a terri- 
tory, and to admission into the Union, on an equal footing with the original 
states, so soon as they should number the requisite population. It was con- 
ceded on all hands, and by all parties, that the peculiarities of their religious 
faith and ceremonies interposed no valid and constitutional objection to their 
reception into the Union, in conformity with the federal Constitution, so long 
as they were in all other respects entitled to admission. Hence the great 
political parties of the country indorsed and approved the Compromise meas- 
ures of 1850, including the act for the organization of the Territory of Utah, 
with the hope and in the confidence that the inhabitants would conform to 
the Constitution and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable and 
law-abiding citizens. If we are permitted to place credence in the rumors 
and reports from that country (and it must be admitted that they have in- 
creased and strengthened, and assumed consistency and plausibility by each 
succeeding mail), seven years' experience has disclosed a state of facts en- 
tirely different from that which was supposed to exist when Utah was organ- 
ized. These rumors and reports would seem to justify the belief that the 
following facts are susceptible of proof: 

1st. That nine tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have re- 
fused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or to do any 
other act recognizing the government of the United States as the paramount 
authority in that territory. . 

2d. That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mor- 
mons (and they constitute the whole people of the territory), are bound by 



UTAH AND THE MORMONS. 461 

horrid oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of 
Brigham Young, and the government of which he is the head, as paramount 
to that of the United States, in civil as well as religious affairs ; and that 
they will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means 
in their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its 
authority. 

3d. That the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is 
now forming alliances with the Indian tribes of Utah and the adjoining ter- 
ritories — stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility — and organizing bands 
of his own followers, under the name of " Danites or Destroying Angels," to 
prosecute a system of robbery and murder upon American citizens, who sup- 
port the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and dis- 
gusting practices and institutions of the Mormon government. 

If, upon a full investigation, these representations shall prove true, they 
will establish the fact that the inhabitants of Utah, as a community, are out- 
laws and alien enemies, unfit to exercise the right of self-government under 
the organic act, and unworthy to be admitted into the Union as a state, 
when their only object in seeking admission is to interpose the sovereignty 
of the state as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and 
crime, debauchery and infamy. (Applause.) 

Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as 
I have no doubt it is his fixed purpose, to remove Brigham Young and all 
his followers from office, and to fill their planes with bold, able, and true 
men, and to cause a thorough and searching investigation into all the crimes 
and enormities which are alleged to be perpetrated daily in that territory, 
under the direction of Brigham Young and his confederates ; and to use all 
the military force necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of their 
duties, and to enforce the laws of the land. (Applause.) 

When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts 
which are believed to exist, it will become the duty of Congress to apply 
the knife and cut out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer. (Applause.) No 
temporizing policy — no half-way measure will then answer. It has been 
supposed by those who have not thought deeply upon the subject, that an 
act of Congress prohibiting murder, robbery, polygamy, and other crimes, 
with appropriate penalties for those offenses, would afford adequate reme- 
dies for all the enormities complained of. Suppose such a law to be on the 
statute-book, and I believe they have a criminal code, providing the usual 
punishments for the entire catalogue of crimes, according to the usages of 
all civilized and Christian countries, with the exception of polygamy, which 
is practiced under the sanction of the Mormon church, but is neither prohi- 
bited nor authorized by the laws of the territory. 

Suppose, I repeat, that Congress should pass a law prescribing a criminal 
code and punishing polygamy among other offences, what effect would it 
have — what good would it do ? Would you call on twenty-three grand jury- 
men with twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor 
miserable wretch for having two wives ? (Cheers and laughter.) Would 
you rely upon twelve petit jurors with twelve wives each to convict the 
same loathsome wretch for having two wives? (Continued, applause.) 
Would you expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three " Danites" to find 
a bill of indictment against a brother "Danite" for having, under their direc- 
tion, murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens ? Much less 
would you expect a jury of twelve " destroying angels" to find another "de- 
stroying angel" guilty of the crime of murder, and cause him to be hanged 
for no other offense than that of taking the life of a Gentile ! No. If there 
is any truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Congress may pass what 
laws it chooses, but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries 



462 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

to punish crimes committed by Mormons in that territory. Some other and 
more effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In my opinion the first 
step should be the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act — 
blotting the territorial government out of existence — upon the ground that 
they are alien enemies and outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying 
the authority of the United States. (Immense applause.) 

The territorial government once abolished, the country would revert to its 
primitive condition, prior to the act of 1850, " under the sole and exclusive 
jurisdiction of the United States," and should be placed under the operation 
of the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1*790, and the various acts sup- 
plemental thereto and amendatory thereof, " providing for the punishment 
of crimes against the United States within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, 
magazine, or any other place or district of country, under the sole 
and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. All offenses against the 
provisions of these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the 
United States courts in the states or territories where the offenders shall be 
" first apprehended or brought for trial." Thus it will be seen that, 
under the plan proposed, Brigham Young and his confederates could be " ap- 
prehended and brought for trial" to Iowa or Missouri, California or Oregon, 
or to any other adjacent state or territory, where a fair trial could be had, 
and justice administered impartially — where the witnesses could be protected 
and the judgment of the court could be carried into execution, without vio- 
lence or intimidation. I do not propose to introduce any new principles into 
our jurisprudence, nor to change the modes of proceeding or the rules of 
practice in our courts. I only propose to place the district of country em- 
braced within the territory of Utah under the operation of the same laws 
and rules of proceeding that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, and our other ter- 
ritories were placed, before they became organized territories. The whole 
country embraced within those territories was under the operation of that 
same system of laws, and all the offenses committed within the same were 
punished in the manner now proposed, so long as the country remained 
"under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;" but the 
moment the country was organized into territorial governments, with legis- 
lative, executive and judicial departments, it ceased to be under the sole aud 
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within the meaning of the act of 
Congress, for the reason that it had passed under another and different juris- 
diction. Hence, if we abolish the territorial government of Utah, preserving 
all existing rights, and place the country under the sole and exclusive juris- 
diction of the United States, offenders can be apprehended, and brought into 
the adjacent states or territories, for trial and punishment, in the same man- 
ner and under the same rules and regulations, which obtained, and have 
been uniformly practiced, under like circumstances since 1790. 

If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate remedy for 
the evils complained of in Utah, no one, no matter what his political creed or 
partizan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished 
theory or constitutional right in regard to the government of the territories. 
It is a great mistake to suppose that all the territory or land belonging to the 
United States must necessarily be governed by the same laws and under the 
same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to which it 
is dedicated or the use which it is proposed to make of it. "While all that 
portion of country which is or shall be set apart to become new States, must 
necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Consti- 
tution which authorizes Congress to admit new states, it does not follow that 
other territory, not intended to be organized and admitted into the Union as 
states, must be governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all 
the rights of self-government and state equality. For instance, if we should 



UTAH AND THE MORMONS. 463 

purchaso Vancouver's Island from Great Britain, for the purpose of removing 
all the Indians from our Pacific territories, and locating them on that island, 
as their permanent home, with guarantees that it should never be settled or 
occupied by white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be 
made and the island governed under the power to admit new states, when 
it was not acquired for that purpose, or intended to be applied to that ob- 
ject ? Being acquired for Indian purposes, is it not more reasonable to as- 
sume that the power to acquire was derived from the Indian clause, and the 
island must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause 
of the Constitution which relates to Indian affairs. Again, suppose wo 
deem it expedient to buy a small island in the Mediterranean or Caribbean 
sea, for a naval station, can it be said, with any force or plausibility, that the 
purchase should be made or the island governed under the power to admit 
new states ? On the contrary, is it not obvious that the right to acquire and 
govern in that case is derived from the power " to provide and maintain a 
navy," and must be exercised consistent with that power ? So, if we pur- 
chase land for forts, arsenals, or other military purposes, or set apart and 
dedicate any territory which we now own for a military reservation, it imme- 
diately passes under the military power, and must be governed in harmony 
with it. So, if land be purchased for a mint, it must be governed under the power 
to coin money; or if purchased for a post-office, it must be governed under 
the power to establish post-offices and post-roads ; or for a custom-house, 
under the power to regulate commerce ; or for a court-house, under the ju- 
diciary power. In short, the clause of the Constitution under which any 
land or territory belonging to the United States must be governed, is indi- 
cated by the object for which it was acquired and the object to which it is 
dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah shall remain in 
force, setting apart that country for a new state, and pledging the faith of 
the United States to receive it into the Union as soon as it should have the 
requisite population, we are bound to extend to it all the rights of self-gov- 
ernment, agreeably to the clause of the Constitution providing for the admis- 
sion of new states. Hence the necessity of repealing the organic act, 
withdrawing the pledge of admission, and placing it under the sole and ex- 
clusive jurisdiction of the United States, in order that persons and property 
may be protected, and justice administered, and crimes punished under the 
laws prescribed by Congress in such cases. 

"While the power of Congress to repeal the organic act and abolish the ter- 
ritorial government cannot be denied, the question may arise whether we 
possess the moral right of exercising the power, after the charter has been 
once granted, and the local government organized under its provisions. This 
is a grave question — one which should not be decided hastily, nor under the 
influence of passion or prejudice. In my opinion, I am free to say there is 
no moral right to repeal the organic act of a territory, and abolish the gov- 
ernment organized under it, unless the inhabitants of that territory, as a com- 
munity, have done such acts as amount to a forfeiture of all rights under it — 
such as becoming alien enemies, outlaws, disavowing their allegiance, or re- 
sisting the authority of the United States. These and kindred acts, which 
we have every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in that territory, 
would not only give us the moral right, but make it our imperative duty to 
abolish the territorial government, and place the inhabitants under the sole 
and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to the end that justice may 
be done, and the dignity and authority of the government vindicated. 

I have thus presented plainly and frankly my views of the Utah question — 
the evils and the remedy — upon the facts as they have reached us, and are 
supposed to be substantially correct. If official reports and authentic infor- 
mation shall change or modify these facts, I shall be ready to conform my 



404 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

action to the real facts as they shall be found to exist. I have no such pride 
of opinion as will induce me to persevere in an error one moment after my 
judgment is convinced. If, therefore, a better plan can be devised — one 
more consistent with justice and sound policy, or more effective as a remedy 
for acknowledged evils, I will take great pleasure in adopting it, in lieu of 
the one I have presented to you to-night. 

In conclusion, permit me to present my grateful acknowledgements for 
your patient attention, and the kind and respectful manner in which you 
have received my remarks. 

Had the remedy thus indicated by Mr. Douglas in 1857 been 
adopted in place of the " war measures," to-day the Mormons 
would have been divested of that political government which 
serves them merely to carry out more fully their treasonable 
and disgusting enormities. To that remedy the government 
must come at last, and with a new government in the gold re- 
gions, the Mormons will eventually be forced either to leave 
the country or reform their code of civil and political morals 
to a standard more becoming the age, and more suitable to the 
enlightenment of the people of the United States. 

MINNESOTA AND OEEGON. 

Pending the Lecompton controversy in Congress, the Pres- 
ident on the 11th day of January, 1858, communicated to Con- 
gress copies of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and 
an application for admission into the Union. It was referred 
in the Senate to the Committee on Territories. On the 26th 
of the same month Mr. Douglas reported a bill for the admis- 
sion of the State. He was indefatigable in his efforts to have 
the bill taken up, but it was not until after the Kansas bill had 
passed that he could succeed. Eventually the bill was taken 
up, and passed with but very little objection. The vote in the 
Senate being, yeas, 49 ; nays, 3 ; and in the House, yeas, 157 ; 
nays, 38. 

On the 5th of April Mr. Douglas, from the Committee, on 
Territories, reported a bill for the admission of Oregon into 
the Union as a State. On the 18th of May, the bill having 
been debated in the meantime, and the principal objection urged 
was that of Mr. Trumbull, that the Constitution of the State 
prohibited the immigration of negroes, the question was taken 
on Trumbull's motion to postpone the bill till next session. 
This motion was rejected, the yeas being, Bell, Chandler, Clay, 
Crittenden, Durkee, Fessenden, Fitznatrick, Hale, Hamlin, 



THE AFEICAN SLAVE TRADE. 465 

Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Kennedy, Mason, Trumbull and 
Wade. Democrats 6, Republicans 7, Americans 3. The bill 
then passed, yeas 35 ; nays 17 ; the nays being the same who 
voted to postpone, excepting Mr. Chandler, and with the addi- 
tion of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, and Mr. Henderson, of Texas. 
The House did not act on the bill until the next session, when 
the bill was passed, and Oregon was admitted. 

At this point it may not be out of place to recapitulate the 
action of Mr. Douglas upon the subject of territorial bills, 
and the admission of new states. When a member of the 
house he was a warm supporter of the bills to establish a ter- 
ritorial government in Oregon. He found that measure un- 
acted upon when he entered the Senate. He voted for it there 
when it passed. He, as a member of the house, supported the 
resolutions for the annexation of Texas, and the bill for her 
admission into the Union. In the house he supported and 
voted for the bills admitting Iowa and Florida as states of the 
Union. On the latter bill he made one of his most forcible 
speeches on a proposal that Florida be required as a condition 
of her admission to abolish a provision in her Constitution lim- 
iting the authority for emancipating slaves. He denied the 
right or power of Congress to legislate upon the provisions of 
any constitution adopted by a state. He reported the several 
bills respecting the admission of Wisconsin, and voted for the 
admission of that state. He wrote the bills establishing the 
territorial governments of Utah, New Mexico, Washington, 
Kansas, Minnesota and Nebraska. He prepared the acts for 
the admission of California, Minnesota, and Oregon, into the 
Union as states. 

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE. 

Mr. Douglas has always been decided in his opposition to the 
revival of the African slave trade. He has been always as de- 
cided in his efforts to enforce the existing, and willing to pro- 
vide additional laws if necessary against that traffic. When 
this matter was discussed some time ago, Mr. Douglas, in an- 
swer to a letter from a gentleman in Virginia, thus expressed 
his views : 

Washington, August 2, 1859. 
Col. John L. Peyton, Staunton, Va.: 

My Dear Sir : You do me no more than justice in your kind letter, for 
which accept my thanks, in assuming that I do not concur with the admin- 

U2 



466 LIFE OF STEPHEN A DOUGLAS. 

istration in their views respecting the rights of naturalized citizens, as denned 
in the " Le Clerc letter," which, it is proper to observe, has since been ma- 
terially modified. 

Under our Constitution there can be no just distinction between the rights 
of native born and naturalized citizens to claim the protection of our gov- 
ernment at home and abroad. Unless the naturalization releases the person 
naturalized from all obligations which he owed to his native country, by 
virtue of his allegiance, it leaves him in the sad predicament of owing al- 
legiance to two countries, without receiving protection from either — a di- 
lemma in which no American citizen should be placed. 

Neither have you misapprehended my opinions in respect to the African 
slave trade. That question seriously disturbed the harmony of the Conven- 
tion which framed the federal Constitution. Upon it the delegates divided 
into two parties, under circumstances which, for a time, rendered harmoni- 
ous action hopeless. The one demanded the instant and unconditional pro- 
hibition of the African slave trade, on moral and religious grounds, while 
the other insisted that it was a legitimate commerce, involving no other con- 
sideration than a sound public policy, which each state ought to be per- 
mitted to determine for itself, so long as it was sanctioned by its own laws. 
Each party stood resolutely and firmly by its own position, until both became 
convinced that this vexed question would break up the Convention, destroy 
the federal Union, blot out the glories of the Revolution, and throw away all 
its blessings, unless some fair and just compromise could be formed on the 
common ground of such mutual concessions as were indispensable to the 
preservation of their liberties, Union, and independence. 

Such a compromise was effected and incorporated into the Constitution, 
by which it was understood that the African slave trade might continue a 
legitimate commerce in those states whose laws sanctioned it until the year 
1808, from and after which time Congress might and would prohibit it for 
ever, throughout the dominion and limits of the United States, and pass all 
laws which might become necessary to make such prohibition effectual. 
The harmony of the Convention was restored, and the Union saved by this 
compromise, without which the Constitution could never have been made. 

I stand firmly by this compromise and by all the other compromises of 
the Constitution, and shall use my best efforts to carry each and all of them 
into faithful execution, in the sense and with the understanding in which 
they were originally adopted. In accordance with this compromise, T am 
irreconcilably opposed to the revival of the African slave trade, in any form 
and under any circumstances. 

am, with great respect, yours truly, 

S. A. DOUGLAS. 



CHAPTER XXI. 

THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 

At no period of his life did Mr. Douglas experience more 
anxiety than just previous to the assembling of the Cincinnati 
Convention. This anxiety was not produced by any anticipa- 
tions as to the action of that body respecting his nomination 
for the presidency. He had, in obedience to an established 
and recognized principle of the party, introduced and carried 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOBM. 467 

through Congress the Kansas-Nebraska Act, including the re- 
peal of the Missouri Compromise. That act had failed to com- 
mand the votes of a large body of the Democratic representa- 
tives in Congress. It had been met by a fierce and unrelent- 
ing combination in the northern states, against which the 
Democracy, except in a few isolated cases, had been unable to 
stand. The elections of 1854-5 had been most disastrous, and 
the thousands who regard present defeat as more fatal than 
the ultimate and successful establishment of a right principle 
heaped upon him their denunciations. His anxiety was lest 
the timid and temporizing would endeavor in that Convention 
to avoid or oppose a clear and unequivocal endorsement of the 
great principle of self-government and non-interference by 
Congress with the subject of slavery in the territories. When 
that Convention met, and when the representatives of the De- 
mocracy of all the states, without a dissenting voice, indorsed 
that great act of legislation, and proclaimed that thenceforth 
Congress washed its hands of all interference with the domes- 
tic affairs of the people of the territories — those inchoate states, 
as President Pierce styled them — all anxiety was removed, and 
once more he had the assurance of the Democracy that his 
adherence to the cause of right and truth had received, as 
well it had merited, the approbation of the Democracy of the 
nation. 

There never was a platform of the Democracy that com- 
mended itself more generally to the approval of the people than 
that adopted at Cincinnati. It commanded the approbation 
of at least one half of the Republican party at the North. The 
latter, however, could not be induced to believe that the De- 
mocracy would carry out that platform in good faith. The 
action of the Lecompton Convention, the propositions for a 
revival of the slave trade, and for a slave code for the territo- 
ries, have not had the effect to remove the doubts previously 
entertained by those who questioned the honesty of the inten- 
tions of those who adopted the Cincinnati platform. The 
only way in which these doubts can ever be removed, and the 
people of the northwest again united under a common organ- 
ization for the protection and security of the Constitution and 
the Union, is by placing the administration of that platform in 
the hands of a man who is known to entertain for it a devotion 
and an affection unequalled by that of any other person. A good 



468 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

platform with candidates whose political fidelity is not estab- 
lished in the minds of the people is one thing, and a very dif- 
ferent thing from the same platform with candidates who are 
known to the people as men who, at all hazards, and under all 
circumstances, will stand by principle, and never, even to court 
popular favor, abandon the established doctrines of free consti- 
tutional government. 

Since June, 1856, Mr. Douglas has been unremitting in his 
defense of that platform. He stands upon it now, and clings 
to it as the best exposition of political faith ever produced in 
the United States since the adoption of the Constitution ; and, 
when fairly executed, the safest and only reliable chart for avoid- 
ing those calamities that must ever attend any Federal legisla- 
tion repecting African slavery. It is the best and most com- 
prehensive declaration of the rights of the States that has ever 
been put in form, and there can be no violation of that plat- 
form that does not equally violate the vested and constitutional 
rights of the states of the Confederacy. 

To the support and maintenance of that platform he has 
devoted much of his time, and expended his health and per- 
sonal labor. In 1856, after its adoption, the Democratic 
National Committee at "Washington regarded his report made 
upon Kansas affairs, on March 12th preceding, such an admir- 
able epitome of the principles of the Democracy, subsequently 
asserted in the Cincinnati platform, that they had no less than 
three hundred thousand copies of it printed and circulated. 
The doctrines of that report were then deemed the best kind 
of Democracy, although they declared that no law or state 
government should be forced upon the people that did not 
receive a sanction from these people. 

In the defense of the Cincinnati platform all questions were 
narrowed down to the one — the great fundamental principle 
of the right of the people of every distinct political community, 
which may be loyal to the Constitution, to regulate their own 
domestic affairs and local institutions, free of all interference 
by other states, or by the Federal government, and subject to 
no other restraint than may exist in the Constitution of the 
United States. In the defense of this principle Mr. Douglas, 
during the recess of 1859, prepared an elaborate essay, which 
was published in the September number of Harper's New 
Monthly Magazine. It had not only the extensive circula- 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 469 

tion of that popular publication, but soon found its way through 
an extra or supplemental edition, in pamphlet form, to all parts 
of the country. It was also published extensively in the pub- 
lic journals. We are authorized by Messrs. Harper & Brothers 
to republish that argument in this volume. It was as follows : 

THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITY. 

[Reprinted from Harper's Magazine, September, 1S59.] 

Under our complex system of government it is the first duty of American 
statesmen to mark distinctly the dividing line between federal and local au- 
thority. To do this with accuracy involves an inquiry, not only into the 
powers and duties of the federal government under the Constitution, but 
also into the rights, privileges, and immunities of the people of the territories, 
as well as of the states composing the Union. The relative powers and 
functions of the federal and state governments have become well understood 
and clearly defined by their practical operation and harmonious action for a 
long series of years ; while the disputed question — involving the right of the 
people of the territories to govern themselves in respect to their local affairs 
and internal polity — remains a fruitful source of partisan strife and sectional 
controversy. The political organization which was formed in 1854, and has 
assumed the name of the Republican party, is based on the theory that Af- 
rican slavery, as it exists in this country, is an evil of such magnitude — social, 
moral, and political — as to justify and require the exertion of the entire 
power and influence of the federal government to the full extent that the 
Constitution, according to their interpretation, will permit for its ultimate 
extinction. In the platform of principles adopted at Philadelphia by the 
Republican National Convention in 1856, it is affirmed : 

" That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the 
territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise 
of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the 
territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." 

According to the theory of the Republican party there is an irrepressible 
conflict between freedom and slavery, free labor and slave labor, free states 
and slave states, which is irreconcilable, and must continue to rage with in- 
creasing fury until the one shall become universal by the annihilation of the 
other. In the language of the most eminent and authoritative expounder 
of their political faith, 

" It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and 
it means that the United States must and will sooner or later, become either 
entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the 
cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisi- 
ana will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans 
become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and 
wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by 
their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and 
New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of 
men." 

In the Illinois canvass of 1858 the same proposition was advocated and 
defended by the distinguished Republican standard-bearer in these words : 

" In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall 
have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself can not 
stand.' I believe this government can not endure permanently half slave 



410 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will 
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either 
the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it 
where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti- 
mate extinction, or its advocates will push forward till it shall become alike 
lawful in all the States — old as well as new, North as well as South." 

Thus it will be seen, that under the auspices of a political party, which 
claims sovereignty in Congress over the subject of slavery, there can be no 
peace on the slavery question — no truce in the sectional strife — no fraternity 
between the North and South, so long as this Union remains as our fathers 
made it — divided into free and slave states, with the right on the part of 
each to retain slavery so long as it chooses, and to abolish it whenever it 
pleases. 

On the other hand, it would be uncandid to deny that, while the Demo- 
cratic party is a unit in its irreconcilable opposition to the doctrines and 
principles of the Republican party, there are radical differences of opinion 
in respect to the powers and duties of Congress, and the rights and immuni- 
ties of the people of the territories under the Federal Constitution, which 
seriously disturb its harmony and threaten its integrity. These differences 
of opinion arise from the different interpretations placed upon the Constitution 
by persons who belong to one of the following classes : 

First. — Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States nei- 
ther establishes or prohibits slavery in the states or territories beyond the 
power of the people legally to control it, but " but leaves the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 

Second. — Those who believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in 
the territories, and withholds from Congress and the territorial Legislature 
the power to control it ; and who insist that, in the event the territorial Leg- 
islature fails to enact the requisite laws for its protection, it becomes the 
imperative duty of Congress to interpose its authority and furnish such pro- 
tection. 

Third. — Thos9 who, while professing to believe that the Constitution es- 
tablishes slavery in the territories beyond the power of Congress or the 
territorial Legislature to control it, at the same time protest against the duty 
of Congress to interfere for its protection ; but insist that it is the duty of 
the Judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the territories without any 
law upon the subject. 

By a careful examination of the second and third propositions, it will be 
seen that the advocates of each agree on the theoretical question, that the 
Constitution establishes slavery in the territories, and compels them to have 
it whether they want it or not ; and differ on the practical point, whether a 
right secured by the Constitution shall be protected by an act of Congress 
when all other remedies fail. The reason assigned for not protecting by law 
a right secured by the Constitution is, that it is the duty of the courts to 
protect slavery in the territories without any legislation upon the subject. 
How the courts are to afford protection to slaves or any other property, 
where there is no law providing remedies and imposing penalties and con- 
ferring jurisdiction upon the courts to hear and determine the cases as they 
arise, remains to be explained. 

The acts of Congress, establishing the several territories of the United 
States, provide that : " The jurisdiction of the several courts herein pro- 
vided for, both appellate and original, and that of the Probate Courts and 
Justices of the Peace, shall be as limited by law" — meaning such laws as 
the territorial Legislatures shall from time to time enact. It will be seen 
that the judicial tribunals of the territories have just such jurisdiction, and 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOKM. 471 

only such, in respect to the rights of persons and property pertaining to the 
citizens of the territory as the territorial Legislature shall see fit to confer ; 
and consequently, that the courts can afford protection to persons and prop- 
erty no further than the Legislature shall, by law, confer the jurisdiction, 
and prescribe the remedies, penalties, and modes of proceeding. 

It is difficult to conceive how any person who believes that the Constitu- 
tion confers the right of protection in the enjoyment of slave property in 
the territories, regardless of the wishes of the people and of the action of 
the territorial Legislature, can satisfy his conscience and his oath of fidelity 
to the Constitution in withholding such Congressional legislation as may be 
essential to the enjoyment of such right under the Constitution. Under 
this view of the subject it is impossible to resist the conclusion that, if the 
Constitution does establish slavery in the territories, beyond the power of 
the people to control it by law, it is the imperative duty of Congress to sup- 
ply all the legislation necessary for its protection ; and if this proposition is 
not true, it necessarily results that the Constitution neither establishes nor 
prohibits slavery any where, but leaves the people of each state and territory 
entirely free to form and regulate their domestic affairs to suit themselves, 
without the intervention of Congress or of any other power whatsoever. 

But it is urged with great plausibility by those who have entire faith in 
the soundness of the proposition, that " a territory is the mere creature of 
Congress ; that the creature can not be clothed with any powers not pos- 
sessed by the creator ; and that Congress, not possessing the power to legis- 
late in respect to African slavery in the territories, can not delegate to a 
territorial Legislature any power which it does not itself possess." 

This proposition is as plausible as it is fallacious. But the reverse of it is 
true as a general rule. Congress can not delegate to a territorial Legislature, 
or to any other body of men whatsoever, any power which the Constitution 
has vested in Congress. In other words : Every power conferred on Congress 
by the Constitution must be exercised by Congress in the mode prescribed in the 
Constitution. 

Let us test the correctness of this proposition by reference to the powers 
of Congress as defined in the Constitution : 

" The Congress shall have power — 

" To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," etc. ; 

" To borrow money on the credit of the United States ;" 

" To regulate commerce with foreign nations," etc. ; 

u To establish a uniform rule of naturalization," etc. ; 

" To coin money, and regulate the value thereof;" 

" To establish post-offices and post-roads ;" 

" To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court ;" 

" To declare war," etc. ; 

" To provide and maintain a navy." 

The fist might be extended so as to embrace all the powers conferred on 
Congress by the Constitution ; but enough has been cited to test the principle. 
Will it be contended that Congress can delegate any one of these powers to a 
territorial Legislature or to any tribunal whatever ? Can Congress delegate 
to Kansas the power to " regulate commerce," or to Nebraska the power " to 
establish uniform rules of naturalization," or to Illinois the power "to coin 
money and regulate the value thereof," or to Virginia the power "to estab- 
lish post-offices and post-roads ?" 

The mere statement of the question carries with it the emphatic answer, 
that Congress can not delegate any power which it does possess ; but that 
every power conferred on Congress by the Constitution must be exercised by 
Congress in the manner prescribed in that instrument. 

On the other hand, there are cases in which Congress may establish tribu- 



472 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

nals and local governments, and invest them with powers which Congress 
does not possess and can not exercise under the Constitution. For instance, 
Congress may establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and confer upon 
them the power to hear and determine causes, and render judgments affecting 
the life, liberty, and property of the citizen, without itself having the power 
to hear and determine such causes, render judgments, or revise or annul the 
same. In like manner Congress may institute governments for the territories, 
composed of an executive, judicial, and legislative department ; and may con- 
fer upon the governor all the executive powers and functions of the territory, 
without having the right to exercise any one of those powers or functions 
itself. 

Congress may confer upon the judicial department all the judicial powers 
and functions of the territory, without having the right to hear and determine 
a cause, or render a judgment, or to revise or annul any decision made by the 
courts so established by Congress. Congress may also confer upon the legis- 
lative department of the territory certain legislative powers which it can not 
itself exercise, and only such as Congress can not exercise under the Constitu- 
tion. The powers which Congress may thus confer but can not exercise, are 
such as relate to the domestic affairs and internal polity of the territoiy, and 
do not affect the general welfare of the Republic. 

This dividing line between Federal and local authority was familiar to the 
framers of the Constitution. It is clearly defined and distinctly marked on 
every page of history which records the great events of that immortal strug- 
gle between the American colonies and the British government, which re- 
sulted in the establishment of our national independence. In the beginning 
of that struggle the colonies neither contemplated nor desired independence. 
In all their addresses to the Crown, and to the Parliament, and to the people 
of Great Britain, as well as to the people of America, they averred that as 
loyal British subjects they deplored the causes which impelled their separa- 
tion from the parent country. They were strongly and affectionately attached 
to the Constitution, civil and political institutions and jurisprudence of Great 
Britain, which they proudly claimed as the birth-right of all Englismen, and 
desired to transmit them unimpaired as a precious legacy to their posterity. 
For a long series of years they remonstrated against the violation of their in- 
alienable rights of self-government under the British Constitution, and humbly 
petitioned for the redress of their grievances. 

They acknowledged and affirmed their allegiance to the Crown, their affec- 
tion for the people, and their devotion to the Constitution of Great Britain ; 
and their only complaint was that they were not permitted to enjoy the rights 
and privileges of self-government, in the management of their internal affairs 
and domestic concerns, in accordance with the guaranties of that Constitution 
and of the colonial charters granted by the Crown in pursuance of it. They 
conceded the right of the Imperial government to make all laws and perform 
all acts concerning the colonies, which were in their nature Imperial and not 
colonial — which affected the general welfare of the Empire, and did not in- 
terfere with the " internal polity" of the colonies. They recognized the right 
of the Imperial government to declare war and make peace ; to coin money 
and determine its value; to make treaties and conduct intercourse with 
foreign nations ; to regulate commerce between the several colonies, and be- 
tween each colony and the parent country, and with foreign countries ; and in 
general they recognized the right of the Imperial government of Great Britain 
to exercise all the powers and authority which, under our Federal Constitu- 
tion, are delegated by the people of the several States to the government of 
the United States. 

Recognizing and conceding to the Imperial government all these powers — 
including the right to institute governments for the colonies, by granting charters 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOBM. 473 

under which the inhabitants residing within the limits of any specified terri- 
tory might be organized into a political community, with a government con- 
sisting of its appropriate departments, executive, legislative, and judicial ; 
conceding all these powers, the colonies emphatically denied that the im- 
perial government had any rightful authority to imposo taxes upon them with- 
out their consent, or to interfere with their internal polity; claiming that it 
was the birth-right of all Englishmen — inalienable when formed into a political 
community — to exercise and enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities 
of self-government in respect to all matters and things which were local and 
not general — internal and not external — colonial and not imperial — as fully 
as if they were inhabitants of England, with a fair representation in Par- 
liament. 

Thus it appears that our fathers of the Revolution were contending, not for 
independence in the first instance, but for the inestimable right of local self- 
government under the British Constitution ; the right of. every distinct politi- 
cal community — dependent colonies, territories, and provinces, as well as 
sovereign states — to make their own local laws, form their own domestic in- 
stitutions, and manage their own internal affairs in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of Great Britain as the paramount law of the empire. 

The government of Great Britain had violated this inalienable right of 
local self-government by a long series of acts on a great variety of subjects. 
The first serious point of controversy arose on the slavery question as early 
as 1699, which continued a fruitful source of irritation until the Revolution, 
and formed one of the causes for the separation of the colonies from the 
British Crown. 

For more than forty years the Provincial Legislature of "Virginia had passed 
laws for the protection and encouragement of African slavery within her 
limits. This policy was steadily pursued until the white inhabitants of Vir- 
ginia became alarmed for their own safety, in view of the numerous and for- 
midalle tribes of Indian savages which surrounded and threatened the feeble 
white settlements, while ship loads of African savages were being daily 
landed in their midst. In order to check and restrain a policy which seemed 
to threaten the very existence of the colony, the Provincial Legislature 
enacted a law imposing a tax upon every slave who should be brought into 
Virginia. The British merchants, who were engaged in the African slave 
trade, regarding this legislation as injurious to their interests and in violation 
of their rights, petitioned the King of England and his Majesty's ministers to 
annul the obnoxious law and protect them in their right to carry their slaves 
into Virginia and all other British colonies which were the common property 
of the empire — acquired by the common blood and common treasure — and 
from which a few adventurers, who had settled on the imperial domain by 
his Majesty's sufferance, had no right to exclude them or discriminate against 
their property by a mere provincial enactment. Upon a full consideration 
of the subject the King graciously granted the prayer of the petitioners ; 
and accordingly issued peremptory orders to the royal governor of Virginia, 
and to the governors of all the other British colonies in America, forbidding 
them to sign or approve any colonial or provincial enactment injurious to 
the African slave trade, unless such enactment should contain a clause sus- 
pending its operation until his Majesty's pleasure should be made known in 
the premises. * 

Judge Tucker, in his Appendix to Blackstone, refers to thirty-one acts of 
the Provincial Legislature of Virginia, passed at various periods from 1662 
to 1172, upon the subject of African slavery, showing conclusively that Vir- 
ginia always considered this as one of the questions affecting her " internal 
polity," over which she, in common with the other colonies, claimed " the 
right of exclusive legislation in their Provincial Legislatures" within their 



474 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

respective limits. Some of these acts, particularly those which were enacted 
prior to the year 1699, were evidently intended to foster and encourage, as 
well as to regulate and control African slavery, as one of the domestic insti- 
tutions of the colony. The act of 1699, and most of the enactments subse- 
quent to that date, were as obviously designed to restrain and check the 
growth of the institution, with the view of confining it within the limit of 
the actual necessities of the community, or its ultimate extinction, as might 
be deemed most conducive to the public interests, by a system of unfriendly 
legislation, such as imposing a tax on all slaves introduced into the colony, 
which was increased and renewed from time to time, as occasion required, 
until the period of the Revolution. Many of these acts never took effect, in 
consequence of the King withholding his assent, even after the governor had 
approved the enactment, in cases where it contained a clause suspending its 
operation until his Majesty's pleasure should be made known in the premises. 

In 1772 the Provincial Legislature of Virginia, after imposing another tax 
of five per cent, on all slaves imported into the colony, petitioned the King 
to remove all those restraints which inhibited his Majesty's governors as- 
senting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce as 
slavery. Of this petition Judge Tucker says : 

" The following extract from a petition to the Throne, presented from the 
House of Burgesses of Virginia, April 1st, 1772, will show the sense of the 
people of Virginia on the subject of slavery at that period : 

" ' The importation of slaves into the colony from the coast of Africa hath 
long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity ; and under its present 
encouragement we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very ex- 
istence of your Majesty's American dominions.' " 

Mark the ominous words! Virginia tells the King of England in 1772, 
four years prior to the Declaration of Independence, that his Majesty's Ameri- 
can dominions are in danger : not because of the stamp duties — not because 
of the tax on tea — not because of his attempts to collect revenue in Ameri- 
ca ! These have since been deemed sufficient to justify rebellion and revo- 
lution. But none of these are referred to by Virginia in her address to the 
Throne — there being another wrong which, in magnitude and enormity, 
so far exceeded these and all other causes of complaint, that the very exist- 
ence of his Majesty's American dominions depended upon it ! That wrong 
consisted in forcing African slavery upon a dependent colony without her 
consent, and in opposition to the wishes of her own people ! 

The people of Virginia at that day did not appreciate the force of the ar- 
gument used by the British merchants, who were engaged in the African 
slave-trade, and which was afterward indorsed, at least by implication, by 
the King and his ministers ; that the colonies were the common property of 
the empire — acquired by the common blood and treasure — and therefore all 
British subjects had the right to carry their slaves into the colonies and hold 
them in defiance of the local law and in contempt of the wishes and safety 
of the colonies. 

The people of Virginia, not being convinced by this process of reasoning, 
still adhered to the doctrine which they held in common with their sister 
colonies, that it was the birth-right of aU freemen — inalienable when formed 
into political communities — to exercise exclusive legislation in respect to 
all matters pertaining to their internal polity — slavery not excepted ; and 
rather than surrender this great right they were prepared to withdraw their 
allegiance from the Crown. 

Again referring to this petition to the King, the same learned Judge adds : 

" This petition produced no effect, as appears from the first clause of our 
(Virginia) Constitution, where, among other acts of misrule, the inhuman use 
of the royal negative in refusing us (the people of Virginia) permission to 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 475 

exclude slavery from us by law, is enumerated among the reasons for separ- 
ating from Great Britain." 

This clause in the Constitution of Virginia, referring to the inhuman use 
of the royal negative, in refusing the colony of Virginia permission to ex- 
clude slavery from her limits by law, as one of the reasons for separating 
from Great Britain, was adopted on the 12th day of June, 1776, three weeks 
and one day previous to the Declaration of Independence by the Continental 
Congress ; and after remaining in force as a part of the Constitution for a 
period of fifty-four years, was re-adopted, without alteration, by the Conven- 
tion which framed the new Constitution in 1830, and then ratified by the 
people as a part of the new Constitution ; and was again re-adopted by the 
Convention which amended the Constitution in 1850, and again ratified by 
the people as a part of the amended Constitution, and at this day remains a 
portion of the fundamental law of Virginia — proclaiming to the world and to 
posterity that one of the reasons for separating from Great Britain was " the 
inhuman use of the royal negative in refusing us (the colony of Virginia) 
permission to exclude slavery from us by law !" 

The legislation of Virginia on this subject may be taken as a fair sample 
of the legislative enactments of each of the thirteen colonies, showing con- 
clusively that slavery was regarded by them all as a domestic question to 
be regarded and determined by each colony to suit itself, without the inter- 
vention of the British Parliament or " the inhuman use of the royal nega- 
tive." Each colony passed a series of enactments, beginning at an early 
period of its history and running down to the commencement of the Revolu- 
tion, either protecting, regulating, or restraining African slavery within its 
respective limits and in accordance with their wishes and supposed interests. 
North and South Carolina, following the example of Virginia, at first en- 
couraged the introduction of slaves, until the number increased beyond their 
wants and necessities, when they attempted to check and restrain the fur- 
ther growth of the institution, by imposing a high rate of taxation upon all 
slaves which should be brought into those colonies ; and finally, in 1764, 
South Carolina passed a law imposing a penalty of one hundred pounds (or 
five hundred dollars) for every negro slave subsequently introduced into that 
colony. 

The colony of Georgia was originally founded on strict anti-slavery prin- 
ciples, and rigidly maintained this policy for a series of years, until the 
inhabitants became convinced by experience that, with their climate and 
productions, slave labor, if not essential to their existence, would prove bene- 
ficial and useful to their material interests. Maryland and Delaware protected 
and regulated African slavery as one of their domestic institutions. Penn- 
sylvania, under the advice of "William Penn, substituted fourteen years' ser- 
vice and perpetual adscript to the soil for hereditary slavery, and attempted 
to legislate, not for the total abolition of slavery, but for the sanctity of mar- 
riage among slaves, and for their personal security. New Jersey, New York, 
and Connecticut recognized African slavery as a domestic institution lawfully 
existing within their respective limits, and passed the requisite laws for its 
control and regulation. 

Rhode Island provided by law that no slave should serve more than ten 
years, at the end of which time he was to be set free ; and if the master 
should refuse to let him go free, or sold him elsewhere for a longer period of 
service, he was subject to a penalty of forty pounds, which was supposed at 
that period to be nearly double the value of the slave. 

Massachusetts imposed heavy taxes upon all slaves brought into the col- 
ony, and provided in some instances for sending the slaves back to their na- 
tive land ; and finally prohibited the introduction of any more slaves into the 
colony under any circumstances. 



476 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

"When New Hampshire passed laws which were designed to prevent the 
introduction of any more slaves, the British cabinet issued the following or- 
der to Governor Wentworth : " You are not to give your assent to, or pass 
any law imposing duties upon negroes imported into New Hampshire." 

While the legislation of the several colonies exhibits dissimilarity of views, 
founded on a diversity of interests, on the merits and policy of slavery, it 
shows conclusively that they all regarded it as a domestic question affecting 
their internal polity in respect to which they were entitled to a full and ex- 
clusive power of legislation in the several provincial Legislatures. For a 
few years immediately preceding the American Revolution the African slave- 
trade was encouiaged and stimulated by the British government and carried 
on with more vigor by the English merchants than at at any other period in 
the history of the colonies ; and this fact, taken in connection with the ex- 
traordinary claim asserted in the memorable preamble to the act repealing 
the stamp duties, that " Parliament possessed the right to bind the colonies 
in all cases whatever," not only in respect to all matters affecting the gene- 
ral welfare of the empire, but also in regard to the domestic relations and in- 
ternal policy of the colony — produced a powerful impression upon the minds 
of the colonists, and imparted peculiar prominence to the principle involved 
in the controversy. 

Hence the enactments by the several colonial Legislatures calculated and 
designed to restrain and prevent the increase of slaves ; and, on the other 
hand, the orders issued by the Crown instructing the colonial governors not 
to sign or permit any legislative enactment prejudicial or injurious to the African 
slave trade, unless such enactment should contain a clause suspending its 
operation until the royal pleasure should be made known in the premises ; or, 
in other words, until the king should have an opportunity of annulling the 
acts of the colonial Legislatures by the " inhuman use of the royal negative." 

Thus the policy of the colonies on the slavery question had assumed a direct 
antagonism to that of the British government ; and this antagonism not only 
added to the importance of the principle of local self-government in the col- 
onies, but produced a general concurrence of opinion and action in respect to 
the question of slavery in the proceedings of the Continental Congress, which 
assembled at Philadelphia for the first time on the 5th of September, 1774. 

On the 14th of October the Congress adopted a bill of rights for the col- 
onies, in the form of a series of resolutions, in which, after conceding to the 
British government the power to regulate commerce and do such other things 
as affected the general welfare of the empire without interfering with the in- 
ternal polity of the colonies, they declared " That they are entitled to a free 
and exclusive power in their several provincial Legislatures, where their right 
of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal 
polity." Having thus defined the principle for which they were contending, 
the Congress proceeded to adopt the following "Peaceful Measures," which 
they still hoped would be sufficient to induce compliance with their just and 
reasonable demands. These " Peaceful Measures" consisted of addresses to 
the king, to the Parliament, and to the people of Great Britain, together with 
an Association of Non-Intercourse to be observed and maintained so long as 
their grievances should remain unredressed. 

The second article of this Association, which was adopted without opposi- 
tion and signed by the delegates from all the colonies, was in these words : 

" That we will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the 
S.-st day of December next ; after which time we will wholly discontinue the 
slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our 
vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are engaged 
in it." 

This bill of rights, together with these articles of association, were subse- 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOBM. 477 

quently submitted to and adopted by each of the thirteen colonies in their 
respective provincial Legislatures. 

Thus was distinctly formed between the colonies and the parent country 
that issue upon which the Declaration of Independence was founded and the 
battles of the Revolution were fought. It involved the specific claim on the 
part of the colonies — denied by the King and Parliament — to the exclusive 
right of legislation touching all local and internal concerns, slavery included. 
This being the principle involved in the contest, a majority of the colonies 
refused to permit their delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence 
except upon the distinct condition and express reservation to each colony of 
the exclusive right to manage and control its local concerns and police regu- 
lations without the intervention of any general Congress which might bo 
established for the United Colonies. 

Let us cite one of these reservations as a specimen of all, showing conclu- 
sively that they were fighting for the inalienable right of local self-government, 
with the clear understanding that when they had succeeded in throwing off 
the despotism of the British Parliament, no congressional despotism was to 
be substituted for it : 

" We, the delegates of Maryland, in convention assembled, do declare that 
the King of Great Britain has violated his compact with this people, and that 
they owe no allegiance to him. "We have, therefore, thought it just and ne- 
cessary to empower our deputies in Congress to join with a majority of the 
United Colonies in declaring them free and independent States, in framing 
such further confederation between them, in making foreign alliances, and in 
adopting such other measures as shall be judged necessary for the preservation 
of their liberties : 

" Provided, the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal polity and 
government of this colony be reserved to the people thereof 

" We have also thought proper to call a new Convention for the purpose of 
establishing a government in this colony. 

"No ambitious views, no desire of independence, induced the people of 
Maryland to form an union with the other colonies. To procure an exemp- 
tion from parliamentary taxation, and to continue to the Legislatures of these 
colonies the sole and exclusive right of regulating their internal polity, was 
our original and only motive. To maintain inviolate our liberties, and to 
transmit them unimpaired to posterity, was our duty and our first wish ; our 
next, to continue connected with and dependent on Great Britain. For the 
truth of these assertions we appeal to that Almighty Being who is emphati- 
cally styled the Searcher of hearts, and from whose omniscience none is con- 
cealed. Relying on his Divine protection and assistance, and trusting to the 
justice of our cause, we exhort and conjure every virtuous citizen to join cor- 
dially in defense of our common rights, and in maintenance of the freedom of 
this and her sister colonies." 

The first plan of Federal government adopted for the United States was 
formed during the Revolution, and is usually known as " The Articles of Con- 
federation." By these articles it was provided that "Each state retains its 
sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and 
right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United 
States in Congress assembled." 

At the time the Articles of Confederation were adopted — July 9, 1178 — the 
United States held no lands or territory in common. The entire country — 
including all the waste and unappropriated lands — embraced within or per- 
taining to the confederacy, belonged to and was the property of the several 
states within whose limits the same was situated. 

On the 6th day of September, 1780. Congress " recommended to the several 
states of the Union having claims to waste and unappropriated lands in the 



478 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

western country, a liberal cession to the United States of a portion of their 
respective claims for the common benefit of the Union." 

On the 20th day of October, 1783, the Legislature of Virginia passed an 
act authorizing the delegates in Congress from that state to convey to the 
United States "the territory or tract of country within the limits of the Vir- 
ginia charter, lying and bearing to the northwest of the river Ohio" — which 
grant was to be made upon the "condition that the territory so ceded shall 
be laid out and formed into States;" and that "the states so formed shall be 
distinct Republican states, and admitted members of the Federal Union, 
having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other 
states." 

On the 1st day of March, 1*784, Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues in Con- 
gress executed the deed of cession in pursuance of the act of the Virginia Leg- 
islature, which was accepted and ordered to " be recorded and enrolled among 
the acts of the United States in Congress assembled." This was the first ter- 
ritory ever acquired, held, or owned by the United States. On the same day 
of the deed of cession Mr. Jefferson, as chairman of a committee which had 
been appointed, consisting of Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, Mr. Chase, of Mary- 
land, and Mr. Howell, of Rhode Island, submitted to Congress " a plan for the 
temporary government of the territory ceded or to be ceded by the individual 
states of the United States." 

It is important that this Jeffersonian plan of government for the territories 
should be carefully considered for many obvious reasons. It was the first 
plan of government for the territories ever adopted in the United States. It 
was drawn by the author of the Declaration of Independence, and revised and 
adopted by those who shaped the issues which produced the Revolution, and 
formed the foundations upon which our whole American system of govern- 
ment rests. It was not intended to be either local or temporary in its char- 
acter, but was designed to apply to all "territory ceded or to be ceded," and 
to be universal in its application and eternal in its duration, wherever and 
whenever we might have territory requiring a government. It ignored the 
right of Congress to legislate for the people of the territories without their 
consent, and recognized the inalienable right of the people of the territories, 
when organized into political communities, to govern themselves in respect to 
their local concerns and internal policy. It was adopted by the Congress of 
the Confederation on the 23d day of April, 1784, and stood upon the statute 
book as a general and permanent plan for the government of all territory 
which we then owned or should subsequently acquire, with a provision declar- 
ing it to be a " Charter of Compact," and that its provisions should " stand 
as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original states and those newly 
described, unalterable but by the joint consent of the United States in Con- 
gress assembled, and of the particular state within which such alteration is 
proposed to be made." Thus this Jeffersonian plan for the government of the 
territories — this " Charter of Compact" — " these fundamental conditions," 
which were declared to be " unalterable" without the consent of the people 
of "the particular states (territories) within which such alteration is proposed 
to be made," stood on the statute book when the Convention assembled at 
Philadelphia in 1787 and proceeded to form the Constitution of the United 
States. 

Now let us examine the main provisions of the Jeffersonian plan : 

First. — " That the territory ceded or to be ceded by the individual states to 
the United States, whenever the same shall have been purchased of the Indian 
inhabitants and offered for sale by the United Stales, shall be formed into 
additional states,' 1 '' etc. etc. 

The plan proceeds to designate the boundaries and territorial extent of the 
proposed "additional states," and then provides: 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 479 

Second. — " That the settlers within the territory so to be purchased and 
offered for sale shall, either on their own petition or on the order of Congress, 
receive authority from them, with appointments of time and place, for their 
free males of full age to meet together for the purpose of establishing a tem- 
porary government to adopt the Constitution and laws of any one of these 
states (the original states), so that such laws nevertheless shall be subject to 
alteration by their ordinary Legislature ; and to erect, subject to like altera- 
tion, counties or townships for the election of members for their Legislature." 

Having thus provided a mode by which the first inhabitants or settlers of 
the territory may assemble together and choose for themselves the Constitu- 
tion and laws of some one of the original thirteen states, and declare the same 
in force for the government of their territory temporarily, with the right on 
the part of the people to change the same, through their local Legislature, 
as they may see proper, the plan then proceeds to point out the mode in which 
they may establish for themselves " a permanent Constitution and govern- 
ment," whenever they shall have twenty thousand inhabitants, as follows : 

Third. — "That such temporary government only shall continue in force in 
any State until it shall have acquired twenty thousand free inhabitants, when, 
giving due proof thereof to Congress, they shall receive from them authority, 
with appointments of time and place, to call a Convention of Representatives 
to establish a permanent Constitution and government for themselves." 

Having thus provided for the first settlers " a temporary government" in 
these " additional states," and for "a permanent Constitution and govern- 
ment" when they shall have acquired twenty thousand inhabitants, the plan 
contemplates that they shall continue to govern themselves as states, having, 
as provided in the Virginia deed of cession, " the same rights of sovereignty, 
freedom, and independence," in respect to their domestic affairs and internal 
polity, "as the other States," until they shall have a population equal to the 
least numerous of the original thirteen States ; and in the mean time shall 
keep a sitting member in Congress, with a right of debating but not of voting, 
when they shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the 
other states, as follows : 

Fourth. — " That whenever any of the said states shall have of free inhabi- 
tants as many as shall then be in any one of the least numerous of the thir- 
teen original states, such state shall be admitted by its delegates into the 
Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the said original 
states." .... 

And— 

" Until such admission by their delegates into Congress any of the said 
states, after the establishment of their temporary government, shall have au- 
thority to keep a sitting member in Congress, with the right of debating, but 
not of voting." 

Attached to the provision which appears in this paper under the " third" 
head is a proviso, containing five propositions, which when agreed to and ac- 
cepted by the people of said additional states, were to " be formed into a 
charter of compact," and to remain forever " unalterable," except by the con- 
sent of such states as well as of the United States — to wit : 

" Provided that both the temporary and permanent governments be estab- 
lished on these principles as their basis : 

1st. — " That they shall forever remain a part of the United States of 
America." 

2d. — "That in their persons, property, and territory they shall be subject to 
the government of the United States in Congress assembled, and to the Arti- 
cles of Confederation in all those cases in which the original states shall be so 
subject." 

3d. — " That they shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts con- 



480 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

tracted, or to be contracted — to be apportioned on them by Congress accord- 
ing to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof 
shall be made on the other states." 

teh. — " That their respective governments shall be in republican form, and 
shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds any hereditary title." 

The fifth article, which relates to the prohibition of slavery after the year 
1800, having been rejected by Congress, never became a part of the Jeffer- 
sonian plan of government for the territories, as adopted April 23, 1?84. 

The concluding paragraph of this plan of government, which emphatically 
ignores the right of Congress to bind the people of the territories without 
their consent, and recognizes the people therein as the true source of all legi- 
timate power in respect to their internal polity, is in these words : 

" That all the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, 
shall be duly executed by the President of the United States, in Congress as- 
sembled, under his hand and the seal of the United States, shall be promul- 
gated, and shall stand as fundamental conditions between the thirteen original 
states and those newly described, unalterable but by the joint consent of the 
United States in Congress assembled, and of the particular state within which 
such alteration is proposed to be made." 

This Jeffersonian plan of government embodies and carries out the ideas and 
principles of the fathers of the Revolution — that the people of every separate 
political community (dependent colonies, provinces, and territories, as well 
as sovereign states) have an inalienable right to govern themselves in respect 
to their internal polity, and repudiates the dogma of the British ministry and 
the Tories of that day, that all colonies, provinces, and territories were the 
property of the empire, acquired with the common blood and common treas- 
ure ; and that the inhabitants thereof have no rights, privileges, or immunities 
except such as the Imperial government should graciously condescend to be- 
stow upon them. This plan recognizes by law and irrevocable " compact" 
the existence of two distinct classes of states under our American system of 
government — the one being members of the Union, and consisting of the 
original thirteen and such other states, having the requisite population, as 
Congress should admit into the Federal Union, with an equal vote in the man- 
agement of Federal affairs, as well as the exclusive power in regard to their 
internal polity respectively — the others, not having the requisite population 
for admission into the Union, could have no vote or agency in the control of 
the Federal relations, but possessed the same exclusive power over their do- 
mestic affairs and internal policy respectively as the original states, with the 
right, while they have less than twenty thousand inhabitants, to choose for 
their government the Constitution and laws of any one of the original states ; 
and when they should have more than twenty thousand, but less than the 
number required to entitle them to admission into the Union, they were au- 
thorized to form for themselves, "a permanent Constitution and government ;" 
and in either case they were entitled to keep a delegate in Congress with the 
right of debating, but not of voting. This "Charter of Compact," with its 
"fundamental conditions," which were declared to be "unalterable" without 
" the joint consent" of the people interested in them, as well as of the United 
States, thus stood on the statute book unrepealed and irrepealable — furnish- 
ing a complete system of government for all "the territories ceded or to be 
ceded" to the United States, without any other legislation upon the subject, 
when, on the 14th day of May, 1787, the Federal Convention assembled in 
Philadelphia and proceeded to form the Constitution under which we now 
live. Thus it will be seen that the dividing line between Federal and local 
authority, in respect to the rights of those political communities which, for the 
sake of convenience and in contradistinction to the states represented in Con- 
gress, we now call territories, but which were then known as "states," or "new 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 481 

states," was so distinctly marked at that day that no intelligent man could fail 
to perceive it. 

It is true that the government of the Confederation had proved totally in- 
adequate to the fulfillment of the ends for which it was devised ; not because 
of the relations between the territories, or new states and the United States, 
but in consequence of having no power to enforce its decrees on the Federal 
questions which were clearly within the scope of its expressly delegated powers. 
The radical defects in the Articles of Confederation were found to consist in 
the fact that it was a mere league between sovereign states, and not a Federal 
government with its appropriate departments — executive, legislative, and 
judicial^-each clothed with authority to perform and carry into effect its 
own peculiar functions. The Confederation having no power to enforce 
compliance with its resolves, " the consequence was, that though in theory 
the resolutions of Congress were equivalent to laws, yet in practice they 
were found to be mere recommendations, which the states, like other sover- 
eignties, observed or disregarded according to their own good- will and gra- 
cious pleasure." Congress could not impose duties, collect taxes, raise 
armies, or do any other act essential to the existence of government, without 
the voluntary consent and cooperation of each of the states. Congress could 
resolve, but could not carry its resolutions into effect — could recommend to 
the states to provide a revenue for the necessities of the Federal government, 
but could not use the means necessary to the collection of the revenue when 
the states failed to comply — could recommend to the states to provide an 
army for the general defense, and apportion among the states their respec- 
tive quotas, but could not enlist the men and order them into the Federal 
service. For these reasons, a Federal government, with its appropriate d^ - 
partments, acting directly upon the individual citizens, with authority to 
enforce its decrees to the extent of its delegated powers, and not dependent 
upon the voluntary action of the several states in their corporate capacity, 
became indispensable as a substitute for the government of the Confederation. 

In the formation of the Constitution of the United States the federal Con- 
vention took the British Constitution, as interpreted and expounded by the 
colonies during their controversy with Great Britain, for their model — mak- 
ing such modifications in its structure and principles as the change in our 
condition had rendered necessary. They intrusted the executive functions 
to a President in the place of a King ; the legislative functions to a Congress 
composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, in lieu of the Parlia- 
ment consisting of the House of Lords and Commons; and the judicial func- 
tions to a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress should from 
time to time ordain and establish. 

Having thus divided the powers of government into the three appropriate 
departments, with which they had always been familiar, they proceeded to 
confer upon the federal government substantially the same powers which 
they as colonies had been willing to concede to the British government, and 
to reserve to the states and to the people the same rights and privileges 
which they as colonies had denied to the British government during the en- 
tire struggle which terminated in our independence, and which they had 
claimed for themselves and their posterity as the birth-right of all freemen, 
inalienable when organized into political communities, and to be enjoyed 
and exercised by colonies, territories, and provinces as fully and completely 
as by sovereign states. Thus it will be seen that there is no organic feature 
or fundamental principle embodied in the Constitution of the United States 
which had not been familiar to the people of the colonies from the period of 
their earliest settlement, and which had not been repeatedly asserted by them 
when denied by Great Britain during the whole period of their colonial his- 
tory. 

X 



482 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Let us pause at this point for a moment, and inquire whether it be just to 
those illustrious patriots and sages who formed the Constitution of the 
United States to assume that they intended to confer upon Congress that 
unlimited and arbitrary power over the people of the American territories, 
which they had resisted with their blood when claimed by the British Par- 
liament over British colonies in America ? Did they confer upon Congress 
the right to bind the people of the American territories in all cases whatso- 
ever, after having fought the battles of the Revolution against a " Preamble" 
declaring the right of Parliament "to bind the colonies in all cases whatso- 
ever ?" 

If, as they contended before the Revolution, it was the birth-right of all 
Englishmen, inalienable when formed into political communities, to exercise 
exclusive power of legislation in their local Legislatures in respect to all 
things affecting their internal polity — slavery not excepted — did not the 
same right, after the Revolution, and by virtue of it, become the birth-right 
of all Americans, in like manner inalienable when organized into political 
communities — no matter by what name, whether colonies, territories, prov- 
inces, or new states ? 

Names often deceive persons in respect to the nature and substance of 
things. A single instance of this kind is to be found in that clause of the 
Constitution which says : 

" Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and 
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United 
States." 

This being the only clause of the Constitution in which the word "terri- 
tory" appears, that fact alone has doubtless led many persons to suppose 
that the right of Congress to establish temporary governments for the terri- 
tories, in the sense in which the word is now used, must be derived from it, 
overlooking the important and controlling facts that at the time the Consti- 
tution was formed the word " territory" had never been used or understood 
to designate a political community or government of any kind in any law, 
compact, deed of cession, or public document ; but had invariably been used 
either in its geographical sense to describe the superficial area of a State or 
district of country, as in the Virginia deed of cession of the " territory or 
tract of country" northwest of the river Ohio ; or as meaning land in its 
character as property, Jn which latter sense it appears in the clause of the 
Constitution referred to, when providing for the disposition of the " territory 
or other property belonging to the United States." These facts, taking in 
connection with the kindred one that during the whole period of the con- 
federation and the formation of the Constitution the temporary governments 
which we now call " territories," were invariably referred to in the deeds of 
cession, laws, compacts, plans of government, resolutions of Congress, public 
records, and authentic documents as "states," or "new states," conclusively 
show that the words " territory and other property" in the Constitution were 
used to designate the unappropriated lands and other property which the 
United States owned, and not the people who might become residents on 
those lands, and be organized into political communities after the United 
States had parted with their title. 

It is from this clause of the Constitution alone that Congress derives the 
power to provide for the surveys and sale of the public lands and all other 
property belonging to the United States, not only in the territories, but also 
in the several states of the Union. But for this provision Congress would 
have no power to authorize the sale of the public lands, military sites, old 
ships, cannon, muskets, or other property, real or personal, which belong to 
the United States and are no longer needed for any public purpose. It 
refers exclusively to property in contradistinction to persons and communi- 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 483 

ties. It confers the same power u to make all needful rules and regulations" in 
the states as in the territories, and extends wherever there may be any land 
or other property belonging to the United States to be regulated or disposed 
of; but does not authorize Congress to control or interfere with the domestic 
institutions and internal polity of the people (either in the states or the ter- 
ritories) who may reside upon lands which the United States onoe owned. 
Such a power, had it been vested in Congress, would annihilate the sover- 
eignty and freedom of the states as well as the great principle of self-gov- 
ernment in the territories, wherever the United States happen to own a 
portion of the public land within their respective limits, as, at present, in the 
States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Illi- 
nois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, California, and 
Oregon, and in the Territories of Washington, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, and 
New Mexico. The idea is repugnant to the spirit and genius of our com- 
plex system of government ; because it effectually blots out the dividing 
line between federal and local authority, which forms an essential barrier for 
the defense of the independence of the states and the liberties of the people 
against federal invasion. With one anomalous exception, all the powers 
conferred on Congress are federal, and not municipal, in their character — af- 
fecting the general welfare of the whole country without interfering with 
the internal polity of the people — and can be carried into effect by laws 
which apply alike to states and territories. The exception, being in dero- 
gation of one of the fundamental principles of our political system (because 
it authorizes the federal government to control the municipal affairs and in- 
ternal polity of the people in certain specified, limited localities), was not 
left to vague inference or loose construction, nor expressed in dubious or 
equivocal language ; but is found plainly written in that section of the Con- 
stitution which says : 

" Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by 
cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the 
seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority 
over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the state in 
which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock- 
yards, and other needful buildings." 

No such power " to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," 
nor indeed any legislation in any case whatsoever, is conferred on Congress 
in respect to the municipal affairs and internal polity, either of the states or 
of the territories. On the contrary, after the Constitution had been finally 
adopted, with its federal power delegated, enumerated, and defined, in order 
to guard in all future time against any possible infringement of the reserved 
rights of the states, or of the people, an amendment was incorporated into 
the Constitution which marks the dividing fine between federal and local 
authority so directly and indelibly that no lapse of time, no partisan preju- 
dice, no sectional aggrandizement, no frenzied fanaticism can efface it. The 
amendment is in these words : 

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
people." 

This view of the subject is confirmed, if indeed any corroborative evidence 
is required, by reference to the proceedings and debates of the Federal Con- 
vention, as reported by Mr. Madison. On the 18th of August, after a series 
of resolutions had been adopted as the basis of the proposed Constitution 
and referred to the Committee of Detail for the purpose of being put in proper 
form, the record says : 

" Mr. Madison submitted, in order to be referred to the Committee of De- 



484 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

■ 
tail, the following powers, as proper to be added to those of the general Leg- 
islature (Congress) : 

" To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United States. 

"To institute temporary governments for the new states arising therein. 

" To regulate affairs with the Indians, as well within as without the limits 
of the United States. 

" To exercise exclusively legislative authority at the seat of the general 

government, and over a district around the same not exceeding square 

miles, the consent of the Legislature of the state or states comprising the 
same being first obtained." 

Here we find the original and rough draft of these several powers as they 
now exist, in their revised form, in the Constitution. The provision empow- 
ering Congress "to dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United States" 
was modified and enlarged so as to include "other property belonging to the 
United States," and to authorize Congress to "make all needful rules and 
regulations" for the preservation, management, and sale of the same. 

The provision empowering Congress "to institute temporary governments 
for the new states arising in the unappropriated lands of the United States," 
taken in connection with the one empowering Congress " to exercise exclu- 
sively legislative authority at the seat of the general government, and over 
a district of country around the same," clearly shows the difference in the 
extent and nature of the powers intended to be conferred in the new states 
or territories on the one hand, and in the District of Columbia on the other. 
In the one case it was proposed to authorize Congress " to institute temporary 
governments for the new states," or territories, as they are now called, just 
as our Revolutionary fathers recognized the right of the British crown to in- 
stitute local governments for the colonies, by issuing charters, under which 
the people of the colonies were " entitled (according to the Bill of Rights 
adopted by the Continental Congress) to a free and exclusive power of legis- 
lation, in their several Provincial Legislatures, where their right of represen- 
tation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity;" 
while, in the other case, it was proposed to authorize Congress to exercise, 
exclusively, legislative authority over the municipal and internal polity of 
the people residing within the district which should be ceded for that pur- 
pose as the seat of the general government. 

Each of these provisions was modified and perfected by the Committees of 
Detail and Revision, as will appear by comparing them with the correspond- 
ing clauses as finally incorporated into the Constitution. The provision to 
authorize Congress to institute temporary governments for the new states or 
territories, and to provide for their admission into the Union, appears in tho 
Constitution in this form : 

" New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 

The power to admit " new states" and " to make all laws which shall be 
necessary and proper" to that end, may fairly be construed to include the 
right to institute temporary governments for such new states or territories, 
the same as Great Britain could rightfully institute similar governments for 
the colonies ; but certainly not to authorize Congress to legislate in respect 
to their municipal affairs and internal concerns, without violating that great 
fundamental principle in defense of which the battles of the Revolution were 
fought. 

If judicial authority were deemed necessary to give force to principles so 
eminently just in themselves, and which form the basis of our entire political 
system, such authority may be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, in the Dred Scott case. In that case the Court say : 

" This brings us to examine by what provision of the Constitution the present 
Federal government, under its delegated and restricted powers, is authorized 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 485 

to acquire territory outside of the original limits of the United States, and 
what powers it may exercise therein over the person or property of a citi- 
zen of the United States, while it remains a territory, and until it shall be 
admitted as one of the States of the Union. 

" There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal 
government to establish or maintain colonies, bordering on the United States 
or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure ; nor to en- 
large its territorial limits in any way except by the admission of new states . . . 

"The power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission 
of new states is plainly given ; and in the construction of this power by all 
the departments of the government, it has been held to authorize the acqui- 
sition of territory, not fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted as 
soon as its population and situation would entitle it to admission. It is ac- 
quired to become a state, and not to be held as a colony and governed by 
Congress with absolute authority ; and as the propriety of admitting a new 
State is committed to the sound discretion of Congress, the power to acquire 
territory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suit- 
able condition to become a state upon an equal footing with the other states, 
must rest upon the same discretion." 

Having determined the question that the power to acquire territory for the 
purpose of enlarging our territorial limits and increasing the number of states 
is included within the power to admit new states and conferred by the same 
clause of the Constitution, the Court proceeded to say that "the power to 
acquire necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the 
purposes for which it was acquired." And again, referring to a former de- 
cision of the same Court in respect to the power of Congress to institute gov- 
ernments for the territories, the Court say : 

" The power stands firmly on the latter alternative put by the Court — that 
is, as the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory." 

The power to acquire territory, as well as the right, in the language of 
Mr. Madison, " to institute temporary governments for the new states arising 
therein" (or territorial governments, as they are now called), having been 
traced to that provision of the Constitution which provides for the admission 
of "new states," the Court proceed to consider the nature and extent of the 
power of Congress over the people of the territories : 

" All we mean to say on this point is, that, as there is no express regula- 
tion in the Constitution defining the power which the general government 
may exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a territory thus ac- 
quired, the Court must necessarily look to the provisions and principles of 
the Constitution, and its distribution of powers, for the rules and principles 
by which its decision must be governed. 

" Taking this rule to guide us, it may be safely assumed that citizens of 
the United States, who emigrate to a territory belonging to the people of the 
United States, can not be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will 
of the general government, and to be governed by any laws it may think 
proper to impose. . . . The territory being a part of the United States, 
the government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Con- 
stitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out ; and the 
federal government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond 
what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has re- 
served." 

Hence, inasmuch as the Constitution has conferred on the Federal govern- 
ment no right to interfere with the property, domestic relations, police 
regulations, or internal polity of the people of the territories, it necessarily 
follows, under the authority of the Court, that Congress can rightfully exer- 
cise no such power over the people of the territories. For this reason alone, 



486 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

the Supreme Court were authorized and 'compelled to pronounce the eighth 
section of the act approved March 6, 1820 (commonly called the Missouri 
Compromise), inoperative and void — there being no power delegated to 
Congress in the Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit slavery in the 
territories. 

In the course of the discussion of this question the Court gave an elabor- 
ate exposition of the structure, principles, and powers of the Federal govern- 
ment ; showing that it possesses no powers except those which are delegated, 
enumerated, and defined in the Constitution ; and that all other powers are 
either prohibited altogether or are reserved to the states, or to the people. In 
order to show that the prohibited as well as the delegated powers are enu- 
merated and defined in the Constitution, the Court enumerated certain pow- 
ers which can not be exercised either by Congress or by the territorial Leg- 
islatures, or by any other authority whatever, for the simple reason that they 
are forbidden by the Constitution. 

Some persons, who have not examined critically the opinion of the Court 
in this respect, have been induced to believe that the slavery question was 
included in this class of prohibited powers, and that the Court had decided 
in the Dread Scott case that the territorial Legislature could not legislate in 
respect to slave property the same as all other property in the territories. 
A few extracts from the opinin of the Court will correct this error, and 
show clearly the class of powers to which the Court referred, as being forbid- 
den alike to the Federal government, to the states, and to the territories. 
The Court say : 

" A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate 
this proposition. For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Con- 
gress can make any law in a territory respecting the establishment of reli- 
gion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of 
the press, or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble, 
and to petition the government for the redress of grievances. 

" Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, 
nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against 
himself in a criminal proceeding. ... So, too, it will hardly be contended 
that Congress could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a territory with- 
out the consent of the owner in a time of peace ; nor in time of war but in a 
manner prescribed by law. Nor could they by law forfeit the property of a 
citizen in a territory who was convicted of treason, for a longer period than 
the life of the person convicted, nor take private property for public use with- 
out just compensation. 

" The powers over persons and property, of which we speak, are not only 
not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are for- 
bidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the states, 
but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the 
Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it re- 
maining under territorial governments, as well as that covered by states. 

"It is a total absence of power, everywhere within the dominion of the 
United States, and places the citizens of a territory, so far as these rights are 
concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the states, and guards them 
as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the general government 
might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Con- 
gress itself can not do this — if it is beyond the powers conferred on the 
Federal government — it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not au- 
thorize a territorial government, established by its authority, to violate the 
provisions of the Constitution." 

Nothing can be more certain than that the Court where here speaking only 
of forbidden powers, which were denied alike to Congress, to the state legisla- 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOKM. 487 

tures, and to the territorial legislatures, and that the prohibition extends 
" every where within the dominion of the United States," applicable equally 
to states and territories, as well as to the United States. 

If this sweeping prohibition — this just but inexorable restriction upon the 
powers of government — federal, state, and territorial — shall ever be held to 
include the slavery question, thus negativing the right of the people of the 
states and territories, as well as the federal government, to control it by law 
(and it will be observed that in the opinion of the Court " the citizens of a 
territory, so far as these rights are concerned, are on the same footing with 
the citizens of the states"), then, indeed, will the doctrine become firmly es- 
tablished that the principles of law applicable to African slavery are uniform 
throughout the dominion of the United States, and that there "is an irrepressi- 
ble conflict between opposing and enduring forces, which means that the 
United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave- 
holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation." 

Notwithstanding the disastrous consequences which would inevitably re- 
sult from the authorative recognition and practical operation of such a doc- 
trine, there are those who maintain that the Court referred to and included 
the slavery question within that class of forbidden powers which (although 
the same in the territories as in the states) could not be exercised by the peo- 
ple of the territories. 

If this proposition were true, which fortunately for the peace and welfare 
of the whole country it is not, the conclusion would inevitably result, which 
they logically deduce from the premises — that the Constitution by the recog- 
nition of slavery establishes it in the territories beyond the power of the peo- 
ple to control it by law, and guarantees to every citizen the right to go there 
and be protected in the enjoyment of his slave property ; and when all other 
remedies fail for the protection of such rights of property, it becomes the im- 
perative duty of Congress (to the performance of which every member is 
bound by his conscience and his oath, and from which no consideration of 
political policy or expediency can release him) to provide by law such ade- 
quate and complete protection as is essential to the fall enjoyment of an im- 
portant right secured by the Constitution. If the proposition be true, that 
the Constitution establishes slavery in the territories beyond the power of the 
people legally to control it, another result, no less startling, and from which 
there is no escape, must inevitably follow. The Constitution is uniform 
" every where within the dominions of the United States" — is the same in 
Pennsylvania as in Kansas — and if it be true, as stated by the President in a 
special message to Congress, " that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the 
Constitution of the United States," and that "Kansas is therefore at this mo- 
ment as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina," why does it not 
exist in Pennsylvania by virtue of the same Constitution ? 

If it be said that Pennsylvania is a Sovereign State, and therefore has a 
right to regulate the slavery question within her own limits to suit herself, it 
must be borne in mind that the sovereignty of Pennsylvania, like that of 
every other state, is limited by the Constitution, which provides that : 

" This Constitution, and all laws of the United States which shall be made 
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under 
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and 
the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution 
or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." 

Hence, the State of Pennsylvania, with her Constitution and laws, and 
domestic institutions, and internal policy, is subordinate to the Constitution of 
the United States, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the Terri- 
tory of Kansas. The Kansas-K ebraska Act says that the Territory of Kan- 
sas shall exercise legislative power over, " all rightful subjects of legislation 



488 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

consistent with the Constitution," and that the people of said territory shall 
be left " perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The pro- 
visions of this act are believed to be in entire harmony with the Constitution, 
and under them the people of Kansas possess every right, privilege, and im- 
munity, in respect to their internal polity and domestic relations which the 
people of Pennsylvania can exercise under their Constitution and laws. Each 
is invested with full, complete, and exclusive powers in this respect, " subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States." 

The question recurs then, if the Constitution does establish slavery in Kan- 
sas or any other territory beyond the power of the people to control it by law, 
how can the conclusion be resisted that slavery is established in like manner 
and by the same authority in all the states of the Union ? And if it be the 
imperative duty of Congress to provide by law for the protection of slave 
property in the territories upon the ground that " slavery exists in Kansas" 
(and consequently in every other territory), "by virtue of the Constitution of 
the United States," why is it not also the duty of Congress, for the same 
reason, to provide similar protection to slave property in all the states of the 
Union, when the Legislatures fail to furnish such protection ? 

"Without confessing or attempting to avoid the inevitable consequences of 
their own doctrine, its advocates endeavor to fortify their position by citing 
the Dred Scott decision to prove that the Constitution recognizes property in 
slaves — that there is no legal distinction between this and every other de- 
scription of property — that slave property and every other kind of property 
stand on an equal footing — that Congress has no more power over the one 
than over the other — and, consequently, can not discriminate between them. 

Upon this point the Court say : 

"Now as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a dif- 
ferent; point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed 
in the Constitution. . . . And if the Constitution recognizes the right 
of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that 
description of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal 
acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, 
executive, or judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the 
benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the 
protection of private property against the encroachments of the government. 

. . . And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in 
all future time, if the slave escapes from Ms owner. This is done in plain 
words — too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the 
Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or 
which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any 
other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the 
duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." 

The rights of the owner which it is thus made the duty of the Federal gov- 
ernment to guard and protect are those expressly provided for in the Consti- 
tution, and defined in clear and explicit language by the Court — that " the 
government, in express terms, is pledged to protect it (slave property) in all 
future time, if the slave escapes from his owner." This is the only contingency, 
according to the plain reading of the Constitution as authoritatively inter- 
preted by the Supreme Court, in which the Federal government is authorized, 
required, or permitted to interfere with slavery in the states or territories; 
and in that case only for the purpose "of guarding and protecting the owner 
in his rights" to reclaim his slave property. In all other respects slaves 
stand on the same footing with all other property — " the Constitution makes 
no distinction between that description of property and other property owned 
by a citizen;" and " no word can be found in the Constitution which gives 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOEM. 489 

Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of 
that kind to less protection than property of any other description." This ia 
the basis upon which all rights pertaining to slave property, either in the 
states or the territories, stand under the Constitution as expounded by the 
Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. 

Inasmuch as the Constitution has delegated no power to the Federal gov- 
ernment in respect to any other kind of property belonging to the citizen — 
neither introducing, establishing, prohibiting, nor excluding it any where 
within the dominion of the United States, but leaves the owner thereof per- 
fectly free to remove into any state or territory and carry his property with 
him, and hold the same subject to the local law, and relying upon the local 
authorities for protection, it follows, according to the decision of the Court, 
that slave property stands on the same footing, is entitled to the same rights 
and immunities, and in like manner is dependent upon the local authorities 
and laws for protection. 

The Court refer to that clause of the Constitution which provides for the ren- 
dition of fugitive slaves as their authority for saying that the " right of property 
in slaves is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." By refer- 
ence to that provision it will be seen that, while the word " slaves" is not 
used, still the Constitution not only recognizes the right of property in slaves, 
as stated by the Court, but exj)licitly states what class of persons shall be 
deemed slaves, and under what laws or authority they may be held to ser- 
vitude, and under what circumstances fugitive slaves shall be restored to 
their owners, all in the same section, as follows : 

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, 
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, 
be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim 
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

Thus it will be seen that a slave, within the meaning of the Constitution, 
is a "person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof" — 
not under the Constitution of the United States, nor by the laws thereof, nor 
by virtue of any Federal authority whatsoever, but under the laws of the 
particular state where such service or labor may be due. 

It was necessary to give this exact definition of slavery in the Constitu- 
tion in order to satisfy the people of the South as well as of the North. The 
slaveholding states would never consent for a moment that their domestic 
relations — and especially their right of property in their slaves — should be 
dependent upon Federal authority, or that Congress should have any power 
over the subject — either to extend, confine, or restrain it ; much less to pro- 
tect or regulate it — lest, under the pretense of protection and regulation, tho 
Federal government, under the influence of the strong and increasing anti- 
slavery sentiment which prevailed at that period, might destroy the institu- 
tion, and divest those rights of property in slaves which were sacred under 
the laws and Constitutions of their respective states so long as the Federal 
government had no power to interfere with the subject. 

In like manner the non-slaveholding states, while they were entirely will- 
ing to provide for the surrender of all fugitive slaves — as is conclusively shown 
by the unanimous vote of all the states in the Convention for the provision 
now unde r consideration — and to leave each state perfectly free to hold 
slaves under its own laws, and by virtue of its own separate and exclusive 
authority, so long as it pleased, and to abolish it when it chose, were un- 
willing to become responsible for its existence by incorporating it into the 
Constitution as a national institution, to be protected and regulated, ex- 
tended and controlled by Federal authority, regardless of the wishes of the 
people, and in defiance of the local laws of the several states and territories. 
For these opposite reasons the southern and northern states united in giv- 

X2 



490 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ing a unanimous vote in the Convention for that provision of the Constitu- 
tion which recognizes slavery as a local institution in the several states where 
it exists, " under the laws thereof," and provides for the surrender of fugitive 
slaves. 

It will be observed that the term " state" is used in this provision, as well 
as in various other parts of the Constitution, in the same sense in which it 
was used by Mr. Jefferson in his plan for establishing governments for the 
new states in the territory ceded and to be ceded to the United states, and 
by Mr. Madison in his proposition to confer on Congress power " to institute 
temporary governments for the new states arising in the unappropriated lands 
of the United States," to designate the political communities, territories as 
well as states, within the dominion of the United States. The word " states" 
is used in the same sense in the ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, for the 
government of the territory northwest of the River Ohio, which was passed 
by the remnant of the Congress of the Confederation, sitting in New York 
while its most eminent members were at Philadelphia, as delegates to the 
Federal Convention, aiding in the formation of the Constitution of the United 
States. 

In this sense the word " states" is used in the clause providing for the 
rendition of fugitive slaves, applicable to all political communities under the 
authority of the United States, including the territories as well as the several 
states of the Union. Under any other construction the right of the owner 
to recover his slave would be restricted to the states of the Union, leaving 
the territories a secure place of refuge for all fugitives. The same remark is 
applicable to the clause of the Constitution which provides that " a person 
charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from 
justice, and be found in another state, shall, on the demand of the executive 
authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to 
the state having jurisdiction of the crime." Unless the term state, as used 
in these provisions of the Constitution, shall be construed to include every 
distinct political community under the jurisdiction of the United States, and 
to apply to territories as well as to the states of the Union, the territories 
must become a sanctuary for all the fugitives from service and justice, for 
all the felons and criminals who shall escape from the several states and 
seek refuge and immunity in the territories. 

If any other illustration were necessary to show that the political commu- 
nities which we now call territories (but which, during the whole period of 
the Confederation and the formation of the Constitution, were always re- 
ferred to as " states" or " new states"), are recognized as " states" in some 
of the provisions of the Constitution, they may be found in those clauses 
which declare that " no state" shall enter into any " treaty, alliance, or con- 
federation ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; coin money ; emit bills of 
credit; make any thing but gold and silver and coin a tender in payment of 
debts ; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obli- 
gation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." 

It must be borne in mind that in each of these cases where the power is not 
expressly delegated to Congress the prohibition is not imposed upon the Fed- 
eral government, but upon the states. There was no necessity for any such 
prohibition upon Congress or the Federal government, for the reason that 
the omission to delegate any such powers in the Constitution was of itself a 
prohibition, and so declared in express terms by the tenth amendment, which 
declares that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Consti- 
tution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respec- 
tively, or to the people." 

Hence it would certainly be competent for the states and territories to ex- 
ercise these powers but for the prohibition contained in those provisions of 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOEM. 491 

the Constitution; and inasmuch as the prohibition only extends to the 
" states," the people of the " terr'tories" are still at liberty to exercise them, 
unless the territories are includeo within the term states, within the mean- 
ing of these provisions of the Constitution of the United States. 

It only remains to be shown that the Compromise measures of 1850 and 
the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 are in perfect harmony with, and a faith- 
ful embodiment of the principles herein enforced. A brief history of these 
measures will disclose the principles upon which they are founded. 

On the 29th of January, 1850, Mr. Clay introduced into the Senate a 
series of resolutions upon the slavery question which were intended to form 
the basis of the subsequent legislation upon that subject. Pending the dis- 
cussion of these resolutions the chairman of the Committee on Territories 
prepared and reported to the Senate, on the 25th of March, two bills — one 
for the admission of California into the Union of states, and the other for the 
organization of the territories of Utah and New Mexico, and for the adjust- 
ment of the disputed boundary of the State of Texas, which were read twice 
and printed for the use of the Senate. On the 19th of April a select com- 
mittee of thirteen was appointed, on motion of Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, of 
which Mr. Clay was made chairman, and to which were referred all pending 
propositions relating to the slavery question. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, 
from the select committee of thirteen, submitted to the Senate an elaborate 
report covering all the points in controversy, accompanied by a bill, which 
is usually known as the " Omnibus Bill." By reference to the provisions of 
of this bill, as it appears on the files of the Senate, it will be seen that it is 
composed of the two printed bills which had been reported by the Com- 
mittee on Territories on the 25th of March previous; and that the only 
material change in its provisions, involving an important and essential prin- 
ciple, is to be found in the tenth section, which prescribes and defines the 
powers of the territorial Legislature. In the bill, as reported by the Com- 
mittee on Territories, the legislative power of the territories extended to 
" rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States," without excepting African slavery ; while the bill, as reported by the 
committee of thirteen, conferred the same power on the territorial Legisla- 
ture, with the exception of African slavery. This portion of the section in its 
original form read thus : 

" And be it further enacted that the legislative power of the territory shall 
extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution 
of the United States and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be 
passed interfering with the primary disposition of the soil." 

To which the committee of thirteen added these words : " Nor in respect 
to African slavery." When the bill came up for action on the 15th of May, 
Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said: 

" I offer the following amendment. To strike out, in the sixth line of the 
tenth section, the words ' in respect to African slavery,' and insert the words 
' with those rights of property growing out of the institution of African slavery 
as its exists in any of the states of the Union.' The object of the amendment 
is to prevent the territorial Legislature from legislating against the rights of 

property growing out of the institution of slavery It will leave to 

the territorial Legislatures those rights and powers which are essentially 
necessary, not only to the preservation of property, but to the peace of the 
territory. It will leave the right to make such police regulations as are nec- 
essary to prevent disorder, and which will be absolutely necessary with such 
property as that to secure its beneficial use to its owner. With this brief 
explanation I submit the amendment." 

Mr. Clay, in reply to Mr. Davis, said : 

"I am not perfectly sure that I comprehend the full meaning of the amend- 



492 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ment offered by the senator from Mississippi. If 1 do, I think he accom- 
plishes nothing by striking out the clause now in the bill and inserting that 
which he proposes to insert. The clause now in the bill is, that the territo- 
rial legislation shall not extend to any thing respecting African slavery 
within the territories. The effect of retaining the clause as reported by the 
committee will be this: That if in any of the territories slavery now exists, 
it shall not be abolished by the territorial Legislature ; and if in any of the 
territories slavery does not now exist, it can not be introduced by the terri- 
torial Legislature. The clause itself was introduced into the bill by the 
committee for the purpose of tying up the hands of the territorial Legisla- 
ture in respect to legislating at all, one way or the other, upon the subject 
of African slavery. It was intended to leave the legislation and the law of 
the respective territories in the condition in which the act will find them. I 
stated on a former occasion that I did not, in committee, vote for the amend- 
ment to insert the clause, though it was proposed to be introduced by a 
majority of the committee. I attached very little consequence to it at the 
time, and I attach very little to it at present. It is perhaps of no particular 
importance whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the measure proposed by 
the senator from Mississippi, it aims at the same thing. I do not understand 
him as proposing that if any one shall carry slaves into the territory — al- 
though by the laws of the territory he can not take them there — the legis- 
lative hands. of the territorial government should be so tied as to prevent it 
saying he shall not enjoy the fruits of their labor. If the senator from Mis- 
sissippi means to say that — " 

Mr. Davis: 

" I do mean to say it." 

Mr. Clay: 

" If the object of the senator is to provide that slaves may be introduced 
into the territory contrary to the lex loci, and, being introduced, nothing shall 
be done by the Legislature to impair the rights of owners to hold the slaves 
thus brought contrary to the local laws, I certainly can not vote for it. In 
doing so I shall repeat again the expression of opinion which I announced 
at an early period of the session." 

Here we find the line distinctly drawn between those who contended for 
the right to carry slaves into the territories and hold them in defiance of the 
local law, and those who contended that such right was subject to the local 
law of the territory. During the progress of the discussion on the same day 
Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said : 

" "We are giving, or proposing to give, a government to a territory, which 
act rests upon the basis of our right to make such provision. "We suppose 
we have a right to confer power. If so, we may mark out the limit to 
which they may legislate, and are bound not to confer power beyond that 
which exists in Congress. If we give them power to legislate beyond that 
we commit a fraud or usurpation, as it may be done openly, covertly, or in- 
directly." 

To which Mr. Clay replied : 

11 Now, sir, I only repeat what I have had occasion to say before, that 
while I am willing to stand aside and make no legislative enactment one 
way or the other— to lay off the territories without the Wilmot proviso, on 
the one hand, with which I understand we are threatened, or without an 
attempt to introduce a clause for the introduction of slavery into the terri- 
tories. While I am for rejecting both the one and the other, I am content 
that the law as it exists shall prevail ; and if there be any diversity of opin- 
ion as to what it means, I am willing that it shall be settled by the highest 
judicial authority of the country. While I am content thus to abide the 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 493 

result, I must say that I can not vote for any express provision recognizing 
the right to carry slaves there." 

To which Mr. Davis rejoined, that — 

" It is said our Revolution grew out of a preamble ; and I hope we have 
something of the same character of the hardy men of the Revolution who first 
commenced the war with the mother country — something of the spirit of that 
bold Yankee who said he had a right to go to Concord, and that go he would ; 
and who, in the maintenance of that right, met his death at the hands of a 
British sentinel. Now, sir, if our right to carry slaves into these territories be 
a constitutional right, it is our first duty to maintain it." 

Pending the discussion which ensued, Mr. Davis, at the suggestion of a 
friends, modified his amendment from time to time, until it assumed the fol- 
lowing shape : 

"Nor to introduce nor exclude African slavery. Provided that nothing 
herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent the territorial Legislature 
from passing such laws as may be necessary for the protection of the rights 
of property of every kind which may have been, or may be hereafter, con- 
formably to the Constitution of the United States, held in or introduced into 
said territory." 

To which, on the same day, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the following amend- 
ment : " 

" Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as 
authorizing or permitting the introduction of slavery or the holding of persons 
as property within said territory." 

Upon these amendments — the one affirming the pro-slavery and the other 
the anti-slavery position, in opposition to the right of the people of the terri- 
tories to decide the slavery question for themselves — Mr. Douglas said : 

" The position that I have ever taken has been, that this, and all other ques- 
tions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the territories, 
ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves ; and that we ought 
to be content with whatever way they may decide the question, because they 
have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, and know much 
better what institutions suit them than we, who have never been there, can 
decide for them. I would therefore have much preferred that that portion of 
the bill should have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Ter- 
ritories, with no provision on the subject of slavery, the one way or the other. 
And I do hope yet that that clause will be stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, 
that it gives no strength to the bill. I am satisfied, even if it did give strength 
to it, that it ought not to be there, because it is a violation of principle — a vio- 
lation of that principle upon which we have all rested our defense of the course 
we have taken on this question. I do not see how those of us who have 
taken the position we have taken — that of non-intervention — and have argued 
in favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves on this question, 
can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which we 
used in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set 
forth by the honorable senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), in that letter 
which is known as the ' Nicholson Letter.' "We are required to abandon that 
platform ; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify our- 
selves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine — and for what ? In order to say 
that the people of the territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem 
adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a pro- 
vision can be acceptable either to the people of the North or the South." 

Upon the question, how many inhabitants a territory should contain before 
it should be formed into a political community, with the rights of self-govern- 
ment, Mr. Douglas said : 

11 The senator from Mississippi puts the question to me as to what numbei 



494 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

of people there must be in a territory before this right to govern themselves 
accrues. Without determining the precise number, I will assume that the 
right ought to accrue to the people at the moment they have enough to con- 
stitute a government ; and, sir, the bill assumes that there are people enough 
there to require a government, and enough to authorize the people to govern 

themselves Your bill concedes that a representative government is 

necessary — a government founded upon the principles of popular sovereignty 
and the right of a people to enact their own laws ; and for this reason you 
give them a Legislature composed of two branches, like the Legislatures of 
the different states and territories of the Union. Tou confer upon them the 
right to legislate on 'all rightful subjects of legislation,' except negroes. Why 
except negroes ? Why except African slavery ? If the inhabitants are compe- 
tent to govern themselves upon all other subjects, and in reference to all other 
descriptions of property — if they are competent to make laws and determine 
the relations between husband and wife, and parent and child, and municipal 
laws affecting the rights and property of citizens generally, they are compe- 
tent also to make laws to govern themselves in relation to slavery and 
negroes." 

With reference to the protection of property in slaves, Mr. Douglas said : 

"I have a word to say to the honorable senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Davis). He insists that I am not in favor of protecting property, and that his 
amendment is offered for the purpose of protecting property under the Consti- 
tution. Now, sir, I ask you what authority he has for assuming that ? Do 
I not desire to protect property because I wish to allow the people to pass 
such laws as they deem proper respecting their rights to property without 
any exception ? He might just as well say that I am opposed to protecting 
property in merchandise, in steamboats, in cattle, in real estate, as to say 
that I am opposed to protecting property of any other description ; for I desiro 
to put them all on an equality, and allow the people to make their own laws 
in respect to the whole of them." 

Mr. Cass said (referring to the amendments offered by Mr. Davis and Mr. 
Chase) : 

"Now with respect to the amendments. I shall vote against them both; 
and then I shall vote in favor of striking out the restriction in the bill upon 
the power of the territorial governments. I shall do so upon this ground. I 
was opposed, as the honorable senator from Kentucky has declared he was, to 
the insertion of this prohibition by the committee. I consider it inexpedient 
and unconstitutional. I have already stated my belief that the rightful power 
of internal legislation in the territories belongs to the people." 

After further discussion the vote was taken by yeas and nays on the 
amendment of Mr. Chase, and decided in the negative: yeas, 25; nays, 30. 
The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, it was 
also rejected : yeas, 25; nays, 30. Whereupon Mr. Seward offered the follow- 
ing amendment : 

" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than by conviction 
for crime, shall ever be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New 
Mexico." 

Which was rejected: yeas, 23 ; nays, 33. 

After various other amendments had been offered and voted upon — all re- 
lating to the power of the territorial Legislature over slavery — Mr. Douglas 
moved to strike out all relating to African slavery, so that the territorial Legis- 
lature should have the same power over that question as over all other rightful 
subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution — which amendment 
was rejected. After the rejection of this amendment, the discussion was re- 
newed with great ability and depth of feeling in respect to the powers which 
the territorial Legislature should exercise upon the subject of slavery. Various 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 495 

propositions were made, and amendments offered and rejected — all relating to 
this one controverted point — when Mr. Norris, of New Hampshire, renewed 
the motion of Mr. Douglas, to strike out the restriction on the territorial 
Legislature in respect to African slavery. On the 31st of July this amend- 
ment was adopted by a vote of 32 to 19 — restoring this section of the bill to 
the form in which it was reported from the Committee on Territories on the 
25th of March, and conferring on the territorial Legislature power over " all 
rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United 
States," without excepting African slavery. 

Thus terminated this great struggle in the affirmance of the principle, as 
the basis of the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they related to the 
organization of the territories, that the people of the territories should decide the 
slavery question for themselves through the action of their territorial Legislatures. 

This controverted question having been definitely settled, the Senate pro- 
ceeded on the same day to consider the other portions of the bill, and after 
striking out all except those provisions which provided for the organization of 
the Territory of Utah, ordered the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and 
on the next day — August 1, 1850 — the bill was read a third time, and passed. 

On the 14th of August the bill for the organization of the Territory of New 
Mexico was taken up, and amended so as to conform fully to the provisions 
of the Utah Act in respect to the power of the territorial Legislature over 
"all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution," without 
excepting African slavery, and was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
without a division; and on the next day the bill was passed — yeas, 27; 
nays, 10. 

These two bills were sent to the House of Representatives, and passed that 
body without any alteration in respect to the power of the territorial Legisla- 
tures over the subject of slavery, and were approved by President Filmore 
September 9, 1850. 

In 1852, when the two great political parties- 1 — "Whig and Democratic — 
into which the country was then divided, assembled in National Convention 
at Baltimore for the purpose of nominating candidates for the Presidency and 
Vice-Presidency, each convention adopted and affirmed the principles em- 
bodied in the compromise measures of 1850 as rules of action by which they 
would be governed in all future cases in the organization of territorial govern- 
ments and the admission of new states. 

On the 4th of January, 1854, the Committee on Territories of the Senate, to 
which had been referred a bill for the organization of' the Territory of Neb- 
raska, reported the bill back, with an amendment, in the form of a substitute 
for the entire bill, which, with some modifications, is now known on the stat- 
ute book as the "Kansas-Nebraska Act," accompanied by a report explaining 
the principles upon which it was proposed to organize those territories, as 
follows : 

" The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to 
commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those 
in which the principles established by the compromise measures of 1850, so 
far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be 
affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new terri- 
tory. The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary 
and beneficial effects in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and 
harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost 
universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by 
the whole country. 

"In the judgment of your committee, those measures were intended to have 
a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the 
difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They 



496 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only fur- 
nish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the 
perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the 
halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament 
of those who were immediately interested in and alone responsible for its con- 
sequences. With a view of conforming their action to the settled policy of 
the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, 
your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in 
their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures." 

After presenting and reviewing certain provisions of the bill, the committee 
conclude as follows: 

" From these provisions it is apparent that the compromise measures of 1850 
affirm and rest upon the following propositions : 

" ' First. — That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in 
the new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the 
people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives to be chosen by 
them for that purpose. 

11 • Second. — That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of per- 
sonal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the 
right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

" 'Third. — That the provision of the Constitution of the United States in 
respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all 
the organized territories, the same as in the states. The substitute for the 
bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the 
favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and prin- 
ciples into practical operation, in the precise language of the Compromise 
Measures of 1850.' " 

By reference to that section of the " Kansas-Nebraska Act" as it now stands 
on the statute book, which described and defined the power of the territorial 
Legislature, it will be seen that it is " in the precise language of the Compro- 
mise Measures of 1850," extending the legislative power of the territory "to 
all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution," without 
excepting African slavery. 

It having been suggested, with some plausibility, during the discussion of 
the bill, that the act of Congress of March 6, 1820, prohibiting slavery north 
of the parallel of 36° 30' would deprive the people of the territory of the power 
of regulating the slavery question to suit themselves while they should re- 
main in a territorial condition, and before they should have the requisite pop- 
ulation to entitle them to admission into the Union as a state, an amendment 
was prepared by the chairman of the Committee, and incorporated into the 
bill to remove this obstacle to the free exercise of the principle of popular 
sovereignty in the territory, while it remained in a territorial condition, by 
repealing the said act of Congress, and declaring the true intent and mean- 
ing of all the friends of the bill in these words : 

" That the Constitution and ah laws of the United States which are not 
locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the territory 
as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act 
preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 
1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Con- 
gress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legisla- 
tion of 1850, commonly called the ' Compromise Measures,' is hereby declared 
inoperative and void — it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to leg- 
Mate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions 
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.'" 

To which was added, on motion of Mr. Badger, the following : 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFOBM. 497 

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or 
put in force any law or regulation -which may have existed prior to the act of 
the sixth of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, or abolishing slavery." 

Tn this form, and with this distinct understanding of its "true intent and 
meaning," the bill passed the two houses of Congress, and became the law of 
the land by the approval of the President, May 30, 1854. 

In 1856, the Democratic party, assembled in National Convention at Cin- 
cinnati, declared by a unanimous vote of the delegates from every State in the 
Union, that 

"The American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in 
the organic laws establishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embod- 
ying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question,' upon which 
the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its 
determined conservatism of the Union — non-interference by Congress with 
slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia. 

11 That this was the basis of the Compromises of 1850, confirmed by both 
the Democratic and Whig parties in National Conventions — ratified by the 
people in the election of 1852 — and rightly applied to the organization of the 
territories in 1854; That by the uniform application of this Democratic prin- 
ciple to the organization of territories and to the admission of new states, 
with or without domestic slavery as they may elect, the equal rights of all 
will be preserved intact — 'the original compacts of the Constitution main- 
tained inviolate — and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to 
its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony any future American 
State that may be constituted or annexed with a Eepublican form of govern- 
ment." 

In accepting the nomination of this Convention, Mr. Buchanan, in a letter 
dated June 16, 1856, said : 

"The agitation on the question of domestic slavery has too long distracted 
and divided the people of this Union, and alienated their affections from each 
other. This agitation has assumed many forms since its commencement, but 
it nc,v seems to be directed chiefly to the territories ; and judging from its 
present character, I think we may safely anticipate that it is rapidly approach- 
ing a ' finality.' The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slav- 
ery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate 
political power, the will of the majority, promises, ere long, to allay the dan- 
gerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as 
free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that 
the people of a territory, like those of a state, shall decide for themselves 
whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 

This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively that 
the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850, and of the Kansas-Nebraska 
Act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774 
and the founders of our system of government subsequent to the Revolution, 
regarded the people of the territories and colonies as political communities 
which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their pro- 
vincial legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in 
all cases of taxation and internal polity. This right pertains to the people 
collectively as a law-abiding and peaceful community, and not to the isolated, 
individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of law. It 
can only be exercised where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a 
government, and capable of performing its various functions and duties — a 
fact to be ascertained and determined by Congress. "Whether the number 
shall be fixed at ten, fifteen, or twenty thousand inhabitants does not atfect 
the principle. 

The principle, under our political system, is that every distinct political com- 



498 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

munity, loyal to the Constitution and the Pinion, is entitled to all the rights, priV' 
ileges, and immunities of self-government in respect to their local concerns and 
internal polity, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. 



THE CONTROVERSY WITH BLACK. 

The appearance of this article in Harper's Magazine was 
rather a surprise to the enemies of popular right. The ability 
of its argument and the great force of its reasoning, carry- 
ing conviction to all candid minds, caused no little alarm. It 
was deemed necessary, on the part of those who professed doc- 
trines which General Cass so emphatically declared were " far 
better suited to the meridian of Constantinople than to that of 
Washington," that there should be a reply. And with that 
blindness and blundering which seems to have marked every 
step and every movement of the Administration in the warfare 
upon popular sovereignty and its champion, instead of commit- 
ting the office of replying to a competent or even well informed 
person, the task was intrusted to Attorney General Black. 
The country sustained a loss in this selection. Had the task 
of replying to Judge Douglas been assumed by a lawyer or 
statesman fitted by natural gifts or legal acquirements and 
political experience to discuss principles of government and 
their bearings and application towards the great point at issue, 
the literature — the political and legal literature of the country, 
would have been enriched by the productions on both sides, 
and the public would have been aided by the profound rea- 
soning of the disputants in arriving at a correct conclusion. 
But Attorney General Black discussed the question not as a 
lawyer, not as a statesman, but after the style of a county 
court pettifogger arguing a case of slander. Had the discus- 
sion of this topic been conducted by Senator Davis, of Missis- 
sippi, instead of by Attorney General Black, the country would 
have had the views of a man thoroughly acquainted with the 
subject, well informed as a statesman, and one representing a 
people deeply interested in the matter ; and whose views would 
have been presented in a manner and in language becoming a 
dignified gentleman, a scholar, and a constitutional lawyer. 
Had it been conducted by Mr. Toucey, who once filled the office 
of^ttorney general with great distinction, the country would 
have had an argument not only embellished with dignity and 
learning, but possibly as clear and as convincing even as his 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 499 

beautiful and thrilling defence of the opposite doctrine deliv- 
ered in the Senate in 1854 and in 1856, 

It is related of an editor in one of the western cities who for 
a long time believed himself possessed of great powers of ora- 
tory, and who upon all occasions and at all times felt called 
upon to "respond for the press," that on one occasion, while 
standing in a crowd at a depot, when a lady complained to her 
attendant of the almost suffocating pressure they were expe- 
riencing, the editor, who had overheard only the first syl- 
lable of the word " pressure," immediately mounted a pile of 
trunks, and in behalf of the " press" gave utterance to his opin- 
ions. Judge Black seems to labor under a like impression, not 
only as to his capacity to discuss legal questions, but also as to 
the necessity for him, whenever a legal question is discussed, 
to enter into the debate, no matter where and by whom origin- 
ated. With a recklessness that amounted almost to absurdity 
he rushed into print in reply to the Harper article of Judge 
Douglas. This reply appeared anonymously in the Wash- 
ington Union, and was soon laughed at by the lawyers of the 
country. Subsequently the name of the author was given, and 
the reply, printed in pamphlet form, and franked by the attor- 
ney general, was distributed broad-cast over the country. 
Judge Douglas was then in Chicago. He had agreed, in reply 
to an invitation of the Democrats of Ohio, to deliver three 
speeches in that State. One of these was at Wooster. On his 
way to that place a copy of Black's reply was placed in his 
hands, and in his speech he discussed somewhat severely some 
of the personal passages of the. document ; and made a remark 
that the author of that reply had, in 1858, written letters to 
Illinois urging reasons for the defeat of Douglas and, conse- 
quently, the election of Lincoln. 

It is only just, as a matter of history, that it should be stated 
that shortly after the publication of this speech letters from a 
cabinet officer were received by persons in Illinois, requesting 
the return of the originals of certain political letters written by 
the same cabinet officer during the great contest between the 
Democracy and the allied Danites and Republicans. 

The limits of this volume preclude the possibility of giving 
herein Judge Douglas' reply to Judge Black's pamphlet. It 
was a complete and thorough review and exposure of the mis- 
takes and blunders of the attorney general. Judge Black, late 



500 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

in October, rejoined in a pamphlet, and Mr. Douglas was pre- 
paring an elaborate reply to that when he was stricken down 
with a painful and protracted disease. For weeks he hoped to 
be able to resume the work, but on November 16th, seeing no 
hope of being able to complete it within a reasonable period, 
he sent what had been written to the printer. 

THE GWIN CONTROVERSY. 

Sometime during the summer of 1859, Senator Gwin made 
a speech at Grass Valley, California, in which he told the Dem- 
ocrats there, that Judge Douglas had been removed from the 
chairmanship of the Committee on Territories because of the 
doctrines of his Freeport speech. 

Copies of Mr. Gwin's speech, as published in the San Fran- 
cisco National, were sent to Mr. Douglas. He at once replied 
to that speech in a letter to the editor of that paper. Mr 
Douglas again asserted that the views entertained by him and 
expressed in his Freeport speech were the same expressed by 
him during the entire period commencing with the compromise 
measures of 1850. He cited numerous authorities to show 
that he always was of that opinion, and also that the Nebraska 
bill was understood by others in the same light. After quoting 
from speeches of Secretaries Cass and Toucey he made the 
following quotation from a speech delivered by Hon. Mr. 
Cobb — Howell Cobb, now Secretary of the Treasury, at West 
Chester, Pennsylvania, on the 19th of September, 1856 : 

Fellow-citizens : There never has been, in all the history of this slavery 
matter, a more purely theoretical issue than the one involved in the question 
propounded to me by my friend, and I will show it to you. I will state to you 
the positions of the advocates of this doctrine of non-intervention, on which there 
are different opinions held; out I will show you that it is the purest abstraction, 
in a practical point of view, that ever was proposed for political discussion. There 
are those who hold that the Constitution carries all the institutions of this 
country into all the territories of the Union ; that slavery, being one of the 
institutions recognized by the Constitution, goes with the Constitution into the 
territories of the United States ; and that when the territorial government is 
organized the people have no right to prohibit slavery there, until they come 
to form a state Constitution. That is what my friend calls " southern doctrine." 
There is another class who hold that the people of the territories, in their terri- 
torial state, and whilst acting as a territorial Legislature, have a right to decide 
upon the question whether slavery shall exist there during their territorial 
state; and that has been dubbed "squatter sovereignty." Now, you perceive 
that there is but one point of difference between the advocates of the two 
doctrines. Each holds that the people have the right to decide the question 
in the territory ; one holds that it can be done through the territorial Legisla- 



THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 501 

ture, aud whilst it has a territorial existence, the other holds that it can be 
dono only when they come to form a state Constitution. But those who 

HOLD THAT THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE CANNOT PASS A LAW PROHIBITING 
SLAVERY, ADMIT THAT UNLESS THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE PASS LAWS TOR 
ITS PROTECTION, SLAVERY WILL NOT GO THERE. THEREFORE, PRACTICALLY A 
MAJORITY OP THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED IN THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE 
DECIDES THE QUESTION. "WHETHER THEY DECIDE IT BY PROHIBITING IT, AC- 
CORDING TO THE ONE DOCTRINE, OR BY REFUSING TO PASS LAWS TO PROTECT IT, 
AS CONTENDED FOR BY THE OTHER PARTY, IS IMMATERIAL. THE MAJORITY OF 
THE PEOPLE BY THE ACTION OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE WILL DECIDE 
THE QUESTION; AND ALL MUST ABIDE THE DECISION WHEN MADE. (Great 

applause.) 

Commenting upon these quotations, Judge Douglas said : 

Here we find the doctrines of the Freeport speech, including "non-action" 
and " unfriendly legislation" as a lawful and proper mode for the exclusion of 
slavery from a territory clearly defined by Mr. Cobb, and the election of Mr. 
Buchanan advocated on those identical doctrines. Mr. Cobb made similar 
speeches during the presidential canvass in other sections of Pennsylvania, in 
Maine, Indiana, and most of the northern states, and was appointed Secretary 
of the Treasury by Mr. Buchanan as a mark of gratitude for the efficient ser- 
vices which had been thus rendered. Will any senator who voted to remove 
me from the chairmanship of the Territorial Committee for expressing opinions 
for which Mr. Cobb, Mr. Toucey and General Cass were rewarded, pretend 
that he did not know that they or either of them had ever uttered such opin- 
ions when their nominations were before the Senate ? I am sure that no sen- 
ator will make so humiliating a confession. Why, then, were those distin- 
guished gentlemen appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate 
as cabinet ministers if they were not good Democrats — sound on the slavery 
question, and faithful exponents of the principles and creed of the party ? Is 
it not a significant fact that the President and the most distinguished and 
honored of his cabinet should have been solemnly and irrevocably pledged to 
this monstrous heresy of "popular sovereignty," for asserting which the Sen- 
ate, by Mr. Gwin's frank avowal, condemned me to the extent of their power ? 

THE PLATFORM UNCHANGED. 

In reply to an unworthy taunt by Judge Black in one of his 
letters, Mr. Douglas thus expressed his veneration for the Cin- 
cinnati platform. 

While I could have no hesitation in voting for the nominee of my own 
party, with whom I might differ on certain points, in preference to the candi- 
date of the Black Republican party, whose whole creed is subversive of the 
Constitution and destructive of the Union, I am under no obligation to be- 
come a candidate upon a platform that I would not be willing to carry out in 
good faith, nor to accept the presidency on the implied pledge to carry into 
effect certain principles, and then administer the government in direct conflict 
with them. In other words, I prefer the position of senator, or even that of 
a private citizen, where I would be at liberty to defend and maintain the well- 
defined principles of the Democratic party, to accepting a presidential nomi- 
nation upon a platform incompatible with the principle of self-government in 
the territories, or the reserved rights of the states, or the perpetuity of the 
Union under the Constitution. In harmony with these views, I said in those 
very speeches in Ohio, to which Judge Black refers in his appendix, that I 



502 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

was in favor of conducting the great struggle of 1860 upon "the Cincinnati 
platform without the addition of a word or the subtraction of a let- 
ter." Yet, in the face of all these facts, the attorney general does not hesi- 
tate to represent me as attempting to establish a new school of politics, to 
force new issues upon the party, and prescribe new tests of Democratic faith. 
In conclusion, I have only to suggest to Judge Black and his confederates 
in this crusade, whether it would not be wiser for them, and more consistent 
with fidelity to the party which placed them in power, to exert their energies 
and direct all their efforts to the redemption of Pennsylvania from the thral- 
dom of Black Bepublicanism than to continue their alliance with the Black 
Republicans in Illinois, with the vain hope of dividing and defeating the Dem- 
ocratic party in the only western or northern state which has never failed to 
cast her electoral vote for the regular nominee of the Democratic party at any 
Presidential election. 



CHAPTER XXII. 

THE INVASION OF STATES. 



When Congress assembled in December, 1859, the bloody 
history of the Harper's Ferry invasion was fresh in the minds 
of the people. That history was soon commented upon in the 
Senate, it formed a leading topic in the House of Representa- 
tives during the protracted struggle over the election of 
Speaker. As soon as both houses had organized, Mr. Doug- 
las submitted a resolution having in view some practical legis- 
lation to prevent a recurrence of such an event. On that re- 
solution a debate ensued, in which Mr. Douglas took a con- 
spicuous part. We give his remarks entire, omitting all com- 
ment, as they are their own best commentaries. 

On the 23d of January — the hour having arrived for the consideration of 
the special order — the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, 
submitted by Mr. Douglas on tbe 16th instant: 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a 
bill for the protection of each state and territory of the Union against inva- 
sion by the authorities or inhabitants of any other state or territory ; and for 
the suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any state 
or territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabi- 
tants, property, or institutions of any state or territory of the Union. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the Governor 
of Virginia addressed an official communication to the President of the 
United States, in which he said : 

"I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a con- 
spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn- 
sylvania, New York, aud other states, to rescue John Brown and his asso- 
ciates, prisoners at Charleston, Virginia. The information is specific enough 
to be reliable. * * * * * 

" Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as 
depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, and unobstructed by guards or 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 503 

otherwise, to invade this state, and we are kept in continual apprehension of 
outrage from fire and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in order that you 
may take steps to preserve peace between the states." 

To this communication, the President of the United States, on the 28th of 
November, returned a reply, from which I read the following sentence : 

u I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the 
United States which would authorize me to ' take steps' for this purpose." 
[That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] 

This announcement produced a profound impression upon the public mind 
and especially in the slaveholding states. It was generally received and re- 
garded as an authorative announcement that the Constitution of the United 
States confers no power upon the federal government to protect each of the 
states of this Union against invasion from the other states. I shall not stop 
to inquire whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws con- 
fer no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress to en- 
act no laws which would authorize the Federal interposition to protect the 
states from invasion ; my object is to raise the inquiry, and to ask the judg- 
ment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on the question, 
whether it is not within the power of Congress, and the duty of Congress, 
under the Constitution, to enact all laws which may be necessary and proper 
for the protection of each and every state against invasion, either from foreign 
powers or from any portion of the United States. 

The denial of the existence of such a power in the Federal government has 
induced an inquiry among conservative men — men loyal to the Constitution 
and devoted to the Union — as to what means they have of protection, if the 
Federal government is not authorized to protect them against external violence. 
It must be conceded that no community is safe, no state can enjoy peace, or 
prosperity, or domestic tranquility, without security against external violence. 
Every state and nation of the world, outside of this Republic, is supposed to 
maintain armies and navies for this precise purpose. It is the only legitimate 
purpose for which armies and navies are maintained in time of peace. They 
may be kept up for ambitious purposes, for the purposes of aggression and 
foreign war ; but the legitimate purpose of a military force in time of peace 
is to insure domestic tranquility against violence or aggression from without. 
The states of this Union would possess that power, were it not for the re- 
straints imposed upon them by the Federal Constitution. When that Consti- 
tution was made, the states surrendered to the Federal government the power 
to raise and support armies, and the power to provide and maintain navies, 
and not only thus surrendered the means of protection from invasion, but con- 
sented to a prohibition upon themselves which declares that no state shall 
keep troops or vessels of war in time of peace. 

The question now recurs, whether the states of this Union are in that 
helpless condition, with their hands tied by the Constitution, stripped of all 
means of repelling assaults and maintaining their existence, without a guar- 
antee from the federal government, to protect them against violence. If the 
people of this country shall settle down into the conviction that there is no 
power in the Federal government under the Constitution to protect each and 
every state from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand 
that the cord be severed, and that the weapons be restored to their hands 
with which they may defend themselves. This inquiry involves the question 
of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the means of repel- 
ling assaults, the means of providing against invasion, must exist as a con- 
dition of the safety of the states and the existence of the Union. 

Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that there is no wrong in this 
Union for which the Constitution of the United States has not provided a 
remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to maintain, that a remedy is 



504 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

furnished for every wrong which can be perpetrated within the Union, if the 
Federal government performs its whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful 
examination of the Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, 
first, to provide for repelling invasion from foreign countries ; and, secondly, 
to protect each state of this Union against invasion from any other state, 
territory, or place, within the jurisdiction of the United States. I will first 
turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon Congress to protect the 
United States — including states, territories, and the District of Columbia; in- 
cluding every inch of ground within our limits and jurisdiction — against 
foreign invasion. In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, 
you find that Congress has power — 

"To raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to make 
rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to pro- 
vide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress 
insurrections, and repel invasions." 

These various clauses confer upon Congress power to use the whole military 
force of the country for the purpose specified in the Constitution. They shall 
provide for the execution of the laws of the Union ; and, secondly, suppress 
insurrections. The insurrections there referred to are insurrections against the 
authority of the United States — insurrections against a state authority being 
provided for in a subsequent action, in which the United States can not inter- 
fere, except upon the application of the state authorities. The invasion which 
is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an invasion of the United 
States. The language is, Congress shall have power to " repel invasions." That 
gives the authority to repel the invasion, no matter whether the enemy shall 
land within the limits of Virginia, within the District of Columbia, within the 
Territory of New Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdiction of the United 
States. The power to protect every portion of the country against invasion from 
foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred, the framers of the Con- 
stitution then proceeded to make guarantees for the protection of each of the 
states by Federal authority. I will read the fourth section of the fourth article 
of the Constitution: 

" The United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a Republi- 
can form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and, 
on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature 
can not be convened), against domestic violence." 

This clause contains three distinct guarantees : first, the United States shall 
guaranty to every state in this Union a Republican form of government; 
second, the United States shall protect each of them against invasion ; third, 
the United States shall, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, 
when the Legislature can not be convened, protect them against domestic 
violence. Now, sir, I submit to you whether it is not clear, from the very 
language of the Constitution, that this clause was inserted for the purpose of 
making it the duty of the Federal government to protect each of the states 
against invasion from any other state, territory, or place within the jurisdiction 
of the United States ? For what other purpose was the clause inserted ? The 
power and duty of protection as against foreign nations had already been 
provided for. This clause occurs among the guarantees from the United States 
to each state, for the benefit of each state, for the protection of each state, 
and necessarily from other states, inasmuch as the guarantee had been given 
previously as against foreign nations. 

If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the true construc- 
tion of the Constitution, it may be found in the forty-third number of the 
Federalist, written by James Madison. Mr. Madison quotes the clause of the 
Constitution which I have read, giving these three guarantees; and, after 
discussing the one guarantying to each state a Republican form of govern- 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 505 

ment, proceeds to consider the second, which makes it the duty of the United 
States to protect each of the states against invasion. Here is what Mr. Madi- 
son says upon that subject : 

" A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts compos- 
ing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each state, 
not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enter- 
prises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern 
confederacies proves that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be 
insensible to the policy of this article." 

The number of the Federalist, hke all the others of that celebrated work, was 
written after the Constitution was made, and before it was ratified by the states, 
and with a view to securing its ratification ; hence the people of the several 
states, when they ratified this instrument, knew that this clause was intended 
to bear the construction which I now place upon it. It was intended to make 
it the duty of every society to protect each of its parts ; the duty of the Fede- 
ral government to protect each of the states ; and, he says, the smaller states 
ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article of the Constitution. 

Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Federal government, by 
the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each of the states against 
invasion or violence from the other states, or from combinations of desperadoes 
within their limits, it necessarily follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass 
all laws necessary and proper to render that guarantee effectual. "While Con- 
gress, in the early history of the government, did provide legislation, which is 
supposed to be ample to protect the United States against invasion from for- 
eign countries and the Indian tribes they have failed, up to this time, to make 
any law for the protection of each of the states against invasion from within 
the limits of the Union. I am unable to account for this omission ; but I pre- 
sume the reason is to be found in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that 
such legislation would ever become necessary for the protection of one state 
of this Union against invasion and violence from her sister states. Who, until 
the Harper's Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could be so 
forgetful of their duties to themselves, to the country, to the Constitution, as 
to plan an invasion of another state, with the view of inciting servile insurrec- 
tion, murder, treason, and every other crime that disgraces humanity ? While, 
therefore, no blame can justly be attached to our predecessors in failing to 
provide the legislation necessary to render this guarantee of the Constitution 
effectual ; still, since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified in 
omitting longer to perform this imperative duty. 

The question then remaining is, what legislation is necessary and proper to 
render this guarantee of the Constitution effectual ? I presume there will be 
very little difference of opinion that it will be necessary to place the whole 
military power of the government at the disposal of the President, under 
proper guards and restrictions against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion 
when the hostile force shall be actually in the field. But, sir, this is not suffi- 
cient. Such a legislation would not be a full compliance with this guarantee 
of the Constitution. The framers of that instrument meant more when they 
gave the guarantee. Mark the difference in language between the provision 
for protecting the United States against invasion and that for protecting the 
states. When it provided for protecting the United States it said Congress 
shall have power to " repel invasion." When it came to make this guarantee 
to the states it changed the language, and said the United States shall "pro- 
tect" each of the states against invasion. In the one instance the duty of the 
government is to repel , in the other the guarantee is that they will protect. 
In other words, the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy 
shall be upon your borders ; until the invading army shall have been organized 
and drilled, and placed in march with a view to the invasion ; but they must 

Y 



506 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

pass all laws necessary and proper to insure protection and domestic tranquil- 
ity to each state and territory of this Union against invasion or hostility from 
other states and territories. 

Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military power when 
the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize the judicial depart- 
ment of the government to suppress all conspiracies and combinations in the 
several states with intent to invade a state or molest or disturb its govern- 
ment, its peace, its citizens, its property, or its institutions. Tou must punish 
the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will 
suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal pro- 
fession than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it is 
proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent to perpetrate the act. 
Look upon your statute books, and I presume you will find an enactment to 
punish the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States; and then another 
section to punish a man for having counterfeit coin in his possession with in- 
tent to pass it ; and another section to punish him for having the molds, or 
dies, or instruments for counterfeiting, with intent to use them. This is a fa- 
miliar principle in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion 
is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal. If it be 
unlawful and illegal to invade a state, and run off fugitive slaves, why not 
make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several states 
with intent to do the act? We have been told that a notorious man who 
has recently suffered death for his crimes upon the gallows, boasted in Cleve- 
land, Ohio, in a public lecture, a year ago, that he had then a body of men em- 
ployed in running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed 
to a livery stable in Cleveland which was full of the stolen horses at that time. 

I think it is within our competency, and consequently our duty, to pass a 
law making every conspiracy or combination in any state or territory of this 
Union to invade another with intent to steal or run away property of any 
kind, whether it be negroes, horses, or property of any other description, into 
another state, a crime, and punish the conspirators by indictment in the 
United States courts, and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the 
state or territory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I 
would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional power will 
reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies with a view of in- 
vading states or territories to control elections, whether they be under the 
garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New England, or Blue Lodges of Missouri. 
(Applause in the galleries.) In other words, this provision of the Constitu- 
tion means more than the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading 
army shall reach the border of a state. The language is, it shall protect the 
state against invasion ; the meaning of which is, to use the language of the 
preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each state domestic tranquility 
against external violence. There can be no peace, there can be prosperity, 
there can be no safety in any community, unless it is secured against violence 
from abroad. Why sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in Europe, 
whether it was not the duty of England, a power foreign to France, to pass 
laws to punish conspiracies in England against the fives of the princes of 
Prance. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign states. I 
predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which we are governed, 
and which we have sworn to obey, and demand that the Constitution be 
executed in good faith so as to punish and suppress every combination, every 
conspiracy, either to invade a state, or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb 
its property, or to subvert its institutions and its government. I believe this 
can be effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the several 
states to take jurisdiction of the offence, and punish the violation of the law 
with appropriate punishments. 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 507 

It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legislation. It 
cannot be said with truth that the Harper's Ferry case will not be repeated, 
or is not in danger of repetition. It is only necessary to inquire into the 
causes which produced the Harper's Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether 
those causes are yet in active operation, and then you can determine whether 
there is any ground for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated. 
Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper's Ferry outrage? 
"Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in ex- 
pressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper's Ferry crime 
was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of 
the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platform, their par- 
tisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of 
their leaders in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) 

Mr. Mason. I trust the order of the Senate will be preserved. I am sure 
it is only necessary to suggest to the presiding officer the indispensable ne- 
cessity of preserving the order of the Senate ; and I give notice that, if it is 
disturbed again, I shall insist upon the galleries being cleared entirely. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President 

The Vice-President. The Senator will pause for a single moment. It is 
impossible for the chair to preserve order without the concurrence of the vast 
assembly in the galleries. He trusts that there will be no occasion to make 
a reference to this subject again. 

Mr. Toombs. I hope that the presiding officer will place officers in the 
galleries, and put a stop to this thing. It is a very bad sign of the times. 
It is unbecoming this body, or the deliberations of any free people. 

The Vice-President. The presiding officer has not the force at his com- 
mand to place officers in the gallery. 

Mr. Douglas. If the Senate will pardon me for a digression an instant, I 
was about to suggest to the presiding officer that I thought it would be nec- 
essary to place officers in different parts of the gallery, with instructions that 
if they saw any person giving any signs of approbation or disapprobation 
calculated to disturb our proceedings, they should instantly put the guilty 
person out of the gallery. 

The Vice-President. That has been done. 

Mr. Douglas. I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper's 
Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of 
the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the purpose of 
crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention of members of 
that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that they are in the habit of 
enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether they do not lead directly 
to those consequences, on the part of those deluded persons who tnink that 
all they say is meant, in real earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great 
principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcilable, eternal 
warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ulti- 
mate extinction throughout the land ; sectional war is to be waged until the 
cotton field of the south shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of 
New Tork and Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In further- 
ance of this article of their creed, you find their political organization not 
only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to 
northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against southern 
states, southern institutions, and southern people. I have had some expe- 
rience in fighting this element within the last few years, and I find that the 
source of their power consists in exciting the prejudices and the passions of 
the northern section against those of the southern section. They not only 
attempt to excite the North against the South, but they invite the South to 
assail and abuse and traduce the North. Southern abuse, by violent men, of 



508 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

northern statesmen and northern people, is essential to the triumph of the 
Kepublican cause. Hence the course of argument which we have to meet is 
not only repelling the appeals to northern passion and prejudice, but we 
have to encounter their appeals to southern men to assail us, in order that 
they may justify their assaults upon the plea of self-defence. 

Sir, when I returned home in 1858, for the purpose of canvassing Illinois, 
with a view to a re-election, I had to meet this issue of the " irrepressible 
conflict*" It is true that the Senator from New York had not then made his 
Rochester speech, and did not for four months afterwards. It is true that he 
had not given the doctrine that precise name and form ; but the principle 
was in existence, and had been proclaimed by the ablest and the most clear- 
headed men of the party. I will call your attention, sir, to a single passage 
from a speech, to show the language in which this doctrine was stated in Il- 
linois before it received the name of the " irrepressible conflict." The Re- 
publican party assembled in state convention in June 1858, in Illinois, and 
unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for United States 
senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before the convention, accepted the nomina- 
tion, and made a speech — which had been previously written and agreed to 
in caucus by most of the leaders of the party. I will read a single extract 
from that speech : 

" In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall 
have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself can not 
stand.' I believe this government can not endure permanently, half slave 
and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will 
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either 
the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it 
where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ul- 
timate extinction ; or its advocates will push forward till it shall become 
alike lawful in all the states — old as well as new, North as well as South." 

Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at a vast gathering of 
many thousands of my constituents to welcome me home, I read that pas- 
sage, and took direct issue with the doctrine contained in it as being revolu- 
tionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with the perpetuity of this republic. 
That is not merely the individual opinion of Mr. Lincoln ; nor is it the individ- 
ual opinion merely of the senator from New York, who four months afterward 
asserted the same doctrine in different language ; but, so far as I know, it is 
the general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party. 
They tell the people of the North that unless they rally as one man, under 
a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view to the ulti- 
mate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whole North and fasten 
itself upon all the free states. They then tell the South, unless you rally as 
one man, binding the whole southern people into a sectional party, and es- 
tablish slavery all over the free states, the inevitable consequence will be 
that we shall abolish it in the slaveholding states. The same doctrine is 
held by the senator from New York in his Rochester speech. He tells us 
that the states must all become free, or all become slave ; that the South, in 
other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph 
over the South, and drive slavery from within its limits. 

Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the position 
of the senator from New York, in notifying the South that, if they wish to 
maintain slavery within their limits, they must also fasten it upon the north- 
ern states, I will read an extract from his Rochester speech : 

" It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; 
and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become 
either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either 
the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 509 

Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New 
Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields 
and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered 
by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston 
and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls 
of men." 

Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Republican party is, that 
there is a conflict between two different systems of institutions in the re- 
spective classes of states — not a conflict in the same states, but an irrepres- 
sible conflict between the free states and the slave states ; and they argue 
that these two systems of state can not permanently exist in the same Union ; 
that the sectional warfare must continue to rage and increase with increas- 
ing fury until the free states shall surrender, or the slave states shall be sub- 
dued. Hence, while they appeal to the passions of our own section, their 
object is to alarm the people of the other section, and drive them to mad- 
ness, with the hope that they will invade our rights as an excuse for some 
of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal to the 
candor of senators, whether this is not a fair exposition of the tendency of 
the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican party. The creed of that party 
is founded upon the theory that, because slavery is not desirable in our 
states, it is not desirable anywhere ; because free labor is a good thing with 
us, it must be the best thing everywhere. In other words, the creed of 
their party rests upon the theory that there must be uniformity in the do- 
mestic institutions and internal polity of the several states of this Union. 
There, in my opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whole sys- 
tem rests. In the Illinois canvass, I asserted, and now repeat, that uniform- 
ity in the domestic institutions of the different states is neither possible nor 
desirable. That is the very issue upon which I conducted the canvass at 
home, and it is the question which I desire to put to the Senate. I repeat, 
that uniformity in domestic institutions of the different states is neither pos- 
sible nor desirable. 

Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution ? I wish the 
country to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted the Union 
consisted of thirteen states, twelve of which were slaveholding states, and 
one a free state. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery ques- 
tion had prevailed in the Federal Convention, do the gentlemen on that side 
of the house think that freedom would have triumphed over slavery? Do 
they imagine that the one free state would have outvoted the twelve slave- 
holding states, and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a 
constitutional provision ? On the contrary, if the test had then been made, 
if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then been pro- 
claimed and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding states against one 
free state, would it not have resulted in a constitutional provision fastening 
slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American soil, North as well as South ? 
"Was it quite fair in those days for the friends of free institutions to claim 
that the Federal government must not touch the question, but must leave 
the people of each state to do as they pleased, until under the operation of 
that principle they secured the majority, and then wield that majority to 
abolish slavery in the other states of the Union? 

Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions had been deemed de- 
sirable when the Constitution was adopted, there was another mode by 
which it could have been obtained. The natural mode of obtaining uniformity 
was to have blotted out the state governments, to have abolished the state 
Legislatures, to have conferred upon Congress legislative power over the mu- 
nicipal and domestic concerns of the people of all the states, as well as upon 
Federal questions affecting the whole Union ; and if this doctrine of uniform- 



510 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

ity had been entertained and favored by the framers of the Constitution, 
such would have been the result. But, sir, the framers of that instrument 
knew at that day, as well as we now know, that in a country as broad as 
this, with so great a variety of climate, of soil, and of production, there must 
necessarily be a corresponding diversity of institutions and domestic regula- 
tions, adapted to the wants and necessities of each locality. The framers of 
the Constitution knew that the laws and institutions which were well 
adapted to the mountains and valleys of New England, were ill-suited to the 
rice plantations and the cotton-fields of the Carohnas. They knew that our 
liberties depended upon reserving the right to the people of each state to 
make their own laws and establish their own institutions, and control them 
at pleasure, without interference from the Federal government, or from any 
other state or territory, or any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, 
was based, and the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimilarity in 
the domestic institutions and internal polity of the several states. The 
Union was founded on the theory that each state had peculiar interests, re- 
quiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, different and distinct 
from every other state. The Union rests on the theory that no two states 
would be precisely alike in their domestic policy and institutions. 

Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestic institutions 
of the different states is repugnant to the Constitution, subversive of the 
principles upon which the Union was based, revolutionary in its character, 
and leading directly to despotism if it is ever established. Uniformity in 
local and domestic affairs in a country of great extent is despotism always. 
Show me centralism prescribing uniformity from the capital to all of its 
provinces in their local and domestic concerns, and I will show you a des- 
potism as odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dis- 
similarity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded upon 
the idea that each state must necessarily require different regulations ; that 
no two states have precisely the same interests, and hence do not need pre- 
cisely the same laws ; and you cannot account for this confederation of states 
upon any other principle. 

Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery must be established 
in all the states or prohibited in all the states ? If we only conform to the 
principles upon which the Federal Union was formed, there can be no con- 
flict. It is only necessary to recognize the right of the people of every state 
to have just such institutions as they please, without consulting your wishes, 
your views, or your prejudices, and there can be no conflict. 

And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States confers upon 
Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting each state against 
external aggression, and inasmuch as that includes the power of suppressing 
and punishing conspiracies in one state against the institutions, property, 
people, or government of every other state, I desire to carry out that power 
vigorously. Sir, give us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and 
authorizes, and I will show the senator from New York that there is a con- 
stitutional mode of repressing the " irrepressible conflict." I will open the 
prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the Republic and the 
domestic tranquility of our states to select their cells wherein to drag out a 
miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes against the peace of society. 
Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpetrated at 
Harper's Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence ? Sir, is not the Repub- 
lican party still embodied, organized, confident of success, and defiant in its 
pretensions ? Does it not now hold and proclaim the same creed that it did 
before this invasion ? It is true that most of its representatatives here disa- 
vow the acts of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. I am glad that they do so; 
I am rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 511 

to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also 
repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the act. 
Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings are being poured into the 
minds of men throughout the country by means of speeches and pamphlets 
and books and through partisan presses. The causes that produced the Har- 
per's Ferry invasion are now in active operation. It is true that the people 
of all the border states are required by the Constitution to have their hands 
tied, without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threat- 
ened invasion in the day or in the night ? Can you expect people to be pa- 
tient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first stationing 
sentinels around their houses to see if a band of marauders and murderers 
are not approaching with torch and pistol ? Sir, it requires more patience 
than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit to constant annoyance, irrita- 
tion and apprehension. If we expect to preserve this Union, we must rem- 
edy, within the Union and in obedience to the Constitution, every evil for 
which disunion would furnish a remedy. If the Pederal government fails to 
act, either from choice or from an apprehension of the want of power, it can 
not be expected that the states will be content to remain unprotected. 

Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, between 
the different portions of the United States, except by bringing to bear the 
power of the federal government to the extent authorized by the Constitution 
— to protect the people of all the states against any external violence or ag- 
gression. I repeat, that if the theory of the Constitution shall be carried out 
by conceding the right of the people of every state to have just such institu- 
tions as they choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an " irrepressible 
conflict," between the free and the slaveholding sfates. 

Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system of sec- 
tional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the power, and all we 
ask of Congrees is to give the means, and we, by indictments and convictions 
in the Pederal courts of our several states, will make such examples of the 
leaders of these conspiracies as will strike terror into the hearts of the others, 
and there will be an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing 
out the conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety. Then we 
shall be able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired our revolution- 
ary fathers upon every battle-field ; which presided over the deliberations of 
the convention that framed the Constitution, and rilled the hearts of the peo- 
ple who ratified it. Then we shall be able to demonstrate to you that there 
is no evil unredressed in the Union for which disunion would furnish a remedy. 
Then, sir, let us execute the Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. 
Let Congress pass all the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete 
effect to every guarantee of the Constitution. Let them authorize the pun- 
ishment of conspiracies and combinations in any state or territory against the 
property, institutions, people or government of any other state or territory, 
and there will be no excuse, no desire, for disunion. Then, sir, let us leave 
the people of every state perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long 
as it pleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old 
golden principle which teaches all men to mind their own business and let 
their neighbors alone. Let this be done and this Union can endure forever 
as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave states, just as the people 
of each state may determine for themselves. 

REPLY TO FESSENDEN, 

Mr, Fessenden having replied at some length to Mr. Doug- 
las, he made the following rejoinder : 



512 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I shall not follow the senator from Maine 
through his entire speech, but simplj notice such points as demand of me some 
reply. He does not know why I introduced my resolution ; he cannot con- 
ceive any good motive for it ; he thinks there must be some other motive 
besides the one that has been avowed. There are some men, I know, who 
cannot conceive that a man can be governed by a patriotic or proper motive ; 
but it is not among that class of men that I look for those who are governed 
by motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his motives. I 
brought in this resolution because I thought the time had arrived when we 
should have a measure of practical legislation. I had seen expressions of 
opinion against the power from authorities so high that I felt it my duty to 
bring it to the attention of the Senate. I had heard that the senator from 
Virginia had intimated some doubt on the question of power, as well as of 
policy. Other senators discussed the question here for weeks when I was 
confined to my sick bed. Was there any thing unreasonable in my coming 
before the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion and confining my- 
self to the practical legislation indicated in the resolution ? Nor, sir, have I 
in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument pertaining to the ne- 
cessity for this legislation. I first showed that there had been a great 
outrage ; I showed what I believed to be the causes that had produced the 
outrage, and that the causes which produced it were still in operation ; and 
argued that, so long as the party to which the gentlemen belong remains em- 
bodied in full force, those causes will still threaten the country. That 
was all. 

The senator from Maine thinks he will vote for the bill that will be proposed 
to carry out the objects referred to in my resolution. Sir, whenever that sena- 
tor and his associates on the other side of the chamber will record their votes 
for a bill of the character described in my resolution and speech, I shall con- 
gratulate the country upon the progress they are making towards sound prin- 
ciples. "Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or more 
men to conspire to run off fugitive slaves, and punish the conspirators by con- 
finement in the penitentiary, I shall consider that wonderful changes have 
taken place in this country. I tell the senator that it is the general tone of 
sentiment in all those sections of the country where the Republican party 
predominate, so far as I know, not only not to deem it a crime to rescue a 
fugitive slave, but to raise mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slander- 
ing the Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare 
upon the rights guarantied by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and 
cities with Republican majorities, can you execute the fugitive slave law ? Is 
it in the town where the senator from New York resides ? Do you not re- 
member the Jerry rescuers ? Is it at Oberlin, where the mob was raised that 
made the rescue last year and produced the riot ? 

Mr. Fessenden. I stated, and I believe it was all I said on that matter, that 
I was disposed to agree with the senator in his views as to the question of 
power ; and that, with my views, I should go very far — far enough to accom- 
plish the purpose — to prevent the forming of conspiracies in one state to attack 
another. I did not understand the senator to say any thing about conspira- 
cies to run away with slaves ; nor did I understand him to say any thing about 
the fugitive slave law. How I should act in reference to that matter I do 
not know; I will meet it when it comes ; but I ask the senator whether that 
was a part of his first speech, or whether it is a part of his reply ? 

Mr. Douglas. The senator will find it several times repeated in my first 
speech, and the question asked : Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies 
and combinations to run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run off horses, or 
any other property ? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common 
in all our northern states, to invade and enter, through their agents, the slave 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 513 

states, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the underground railroad, 
in order to send them to Canada. It is these conspiracies to perpetrate crime 
with impunity that keep up the irritation. John Brown could boast, hi a 
public house in Cleveland, that he and his band had been engaged all the 
winter in stealing horses and running them off from the slaveholders in Mis- 
souri, and that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet 
the conspiracy to do it could not be punished. 

Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the 
penitentiary, after conviction in the United States court, to make a conspiracy 
in one state, against the people, property, government, or institutions, of an- 
other. Then we shall get at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gen- 
tlemen on the other side will vote for a law which pretends to comply with 
the guarantees of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in 
its provisions. I have heard men abuse the fugitive slave law, and express 
their willingness to vote for amendments : but when you come to the amend- 
ments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such as would never 
return a fugitive to his master. They would go for any fugitive slave law that 
had a hole in it big enough to let the negro drop through and escape ; but 
none that would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall 
find that side of the chamber voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of 
unlawful expeditions against neighboring states, without being efficient in 
affording protection. 

But the senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy to 
represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern institutions. Sir, it is a 
part of the policy of the northern Democracy, as well as their duty, to speak the 
truth on that subject. I did not suppose that any man would have the auda- 
city to arraign a brother senator here for representing the Republican party 
as dealing in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to 
your Philadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of Congress 
over the territories for their government, and demand that it shall be exerted 
against those twin relicts of barbarism — polygamy and slavery. 

Mr. Fessenden. Let me suggest to the senator that he is entirely changing 
the issue between him and me. I did not desire to say, and I did not say, 
that the Republicans of the North were not unfriendly to the institution of 
slavery. I admitted myself that I was ; I trust they all are. It is not in that 
respect that I accuse the Democracy of the North of misrepresenting the posi- 
tion of the Republican party. It was in representing that they desired to inter- 
fere with the institution in the southern states. That is the ground — that 
they were opposed to southern rights. That they do not think well of slavery, 
as it exists in this country, I do not undertake to deny. I do not know that 
southern gentlemen expect us to be friendly to it. I apprehend that they 
would not think very well of us if we pretended to be friendly to it. If we 
were friendly to the institution, we should try to adopt, we certainly should 
not oppose it ; but what I charged upon the northern Democracy was, that 
they misrepresented our position. That we were opposed to the extension 
of slavery over free territory, that we called it a relic of barbarism, I admit ; 
but I do deny that the Republican party, or the Republicans generally, have 
ever exhibited a desire or made a movement towards interfering with the 
right of southern men the states, or any constitutional rights that they have 
any whore. That is the charge I made. 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party 
appeal to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern institu- 
tions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those institutions ? 
They represent southern institutions as no better than polygamy ; the slave- 
holder as no better than the polygamist ; and complain that we should inti- 
mate that they did not like to associate with the slaveholder any better than 

Y2 



514 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

with the polygamist I can see a monstrous lowering of the flag in the sen- 
ator's speech and explanation. I would respect the concession, if the fact 
was acknowledged. This thing of shrinking from position that every north- 
ern man knows to be true, and arraigning men for slander for telling the truth 
to them 

Mr. Fessenden. I know it not to be true. 

Mr. Douglas. You may know it down in Maine, but you do not know it m 
Illinois. I have always noted that those men who were so far off from the 
slave states that they did not know any thing about them, are most anxious 
for the fate of the poor slave. Those men who are so far off that they do not 
know what a negro is, are distressed to death about the condition of the poor 
negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into the border states, where we associate 
across the line, where the civilities of society are constantly interchanged ; 
where we trade with each other, and have social and commercial intercourse, 
and there you will find them standing by each other like a band of brothers. 
Take southern Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that part of 
Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will find social inter- 
course, commercial intercourse, good feeling; because those people know 
the condition of the slave on the opposite side of the line ; but just in propor- 
tion as you recede from the slave states, just in proportion as the people are 
ignorant of the facts, just in that proportion party leaders can impose on their 
sympathies and honest prejudices. 

Sir, I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party, wherever I 
have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as to try to rally the 
whole north on sectional grounds against the south. I know that is to be 
the issue, and it is proven by the speech of the senator from New York, 
which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln, so far as they are authority. 
I happen to have those speeches before me. The senator from Maine has 
said that neither of these speeches justified the conclusion that they asserted 
that the free states and the slave states cannot coexist permanently in the 
same Republic. Let us see whether they do or not. Mr. Lincoln says : 

" A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government 
cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free." 

Then he goes on to say they must all be one thing or all the other, or else 
the Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that language, unless it 
is that the Union cannot permanently exist, half slave and half free — that it 
must all become one thing or all become the other ? That is the declaration. 

The declaration is that the North must combine as a sectional party, and 
carry on the agitation so fiercely, up to the very borders of the slaveholding 
states, that the master dare not sleep at night for fear that the robbers, the 
John Browns, will come and set his house on fire, and murder the women 
and children, before morning. It is to surround the slaveholding states by a 
cordon of free states, to use the language of the senator ; to hem them in, in 
order that you may smother them out. The senator avowed, in his speech 
to-day, their object to be to hem in the slave states, in order that slavery 
may die out. How die out ? Confine it to its present limits ; let the ratio 
of increase go on by the laws of nature ; and just in proportion as the lands 
in the slaveholding" states wear out, the negroes increase, and you will soon 
reach that point where the soil will not produce enough to feed the slaves ; 
then hem them in, and let them starve out — let them die out by starvation. 
That is the policy — hem them in, and starve them out. Do as the French 
did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the caverns— smoke them out, by 
making fires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep them burning until they 
die. The policy is, to keep up this agitation along the line ; make slave 
property insecure in the border states ; keep the master constantly in appre- 
hension of assault, till he will consent to abandon his native country, leaving 



THE INVASION OP STATES. 515 

his slaves behind him, or to remove them further south. If you can force 
Kentucky thus to abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border state, and 
begin the same operation upon her. 

But, sir, let us see whether the senator from New Tork did not proclaim 
the doctrine that free states and slave states cannot permanently exist in the 
same Republic. He said : 

" It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and 
it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either 
entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free labor nation." 

The opposing conflict is between the States ; the Union can not remain as 
it now is, part free and part slave. The conflict between free states and 
slave states must go on until there is not a slave state left, or until they are 
all slave states. That is the declaration of the senator from New Tork. The 
senator from Maine tried to make the senate believe that I had misrepre- 
sented the senator from New York and Mr. Lincoln, of Illinois, in stating 
that they referred to a conflict between states. He said that all they meant 
was that it was a conflict between free labor and slave labor in the same 
state. Now, sir, let me submit to that man's candor whether he will insist 
on that position. They both say the contest will go on until the states be- 
come all free or all slave. Then, when is the contest going to end ? "When 
they become all slave ? "Will there not be the same conflict between free 
labor and slave labor, after every state has become a slave state, that there 
is now ? If that was the meaning, would the conflict between slave labor 
and free labor cease even when every state had become slaveholding? Have 
not all the slaveholding states a large number of free laborers within their 
limits ; and if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and slave 
labor, will you remove that conflict by making the states all slave ? Yet, 
the senator from New York says they must become all slave or all free be- 
fore the conflict ceases. Sir, that shows that the senator from New York 
meant what I represented him as meaning. It shows that a man who 
knows the meaning of words, and has the heart to express them as they 
read, can not fail to know that that was the meaning of those senators. The 
boldness with which a charge of misrepresentation may be made in this 
body will not give character to it when it is contradicted by the facts. I 
dislike to have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation ; 
yet the senator began with a series of inuendoes, with a series of complaints 
of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet the real issues of his 
party, and would make up for that by personal assaults and inuendos against 
the opposite party. 

He goes back to a speech of mine in opposition to the Lecompton Consti- 
tution, in which I said that if you would send that Constitution back and let 
the people of Kansas vote for or against it, if they voted for a free state or 
a slave state I would go for it without caring whether they voted slavery up 
or down. He thinks it is a great charge against me that I do not care 
whether the people vote it up or vote it down. 

Mr. Fessenden. The senator is mistaken as to the speech to which I re- 
ferred. It was one of his speeches made on his southern tour that I referred 
to. 

Mr. Douglas. The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate— the first 
speech I made against the Lecompton Constitution. It was quoted all over 
Illinois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment each 
time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as well as the 
North. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave state, it is their 
business and not mine ; if they want a free state, they have a right to have 
it ; and hence, I do not care, so far as regards my action, whether they make 
it a free state or not ; it is none of my business. But the senator says he 



516 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

does care, he has a preference between freedom and slavery. How long 
would this preference last if he was a sugar planter in Louisiana, residing 
on his estate, instead of living in Maine ? Sir, I hold the doctrine that 
a wise statesman will adapt his laws to the wants, conditions, and interests 
of the people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one 
climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of Louisiana I 
would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, because I believe the good 
of that people would require it. As a citizen of Illinois I am utterly op- 
posed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it. I should 
like to see the Abolitionist who would go and live in a southern country 
that would not get over his scruples very soon and have a plantation as 
quickly as he could get the money to buy it. 

I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of climate, of 
political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legislation. Wherever 
the climate, the soil, the health of the country are such that it can not be 
cultivated by white labor, you will have African labor, and compulsory labor 
at that. "Wherever white labor can be employed cheapest and most profit- 
ably, there African labor will retire and white labor will take its place. 

You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may make on one 
inch of territory against the will of the people, and you cannot by any law 
you can make keep it out from one inch of American territory where the 
people want it. You tried it in Illinois. By the ordinance of 1787 slavery 
was prohibited, and yet our people, believing that slavery would be profita- 
ble to them, established hereditary servitude in the territory by territorial 
legislation, in defiance of your Federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there 
just so long as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at 
just the moment you recognized us as a state, with the right to do as we 
pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it was our 
interest to do so. When we abolished it, we did so because experience 
proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold that slavery is a ques- 
tion of political economy, to be determined by climate, by soil, by production, 
by self-interest, and hence the people to be affected by it are the most im- 
partial jury to try the fact whether their interest requires them to have it or 
not. 

But the senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do not care 
whether they have it or not. I care just this far : I want every people to 
have that kind of government, that system of laws, that class of institutions, 
which will best promote their welfare, and I want them to decide for them- 
selves ; and so that they decide it to suit themselves, I am satisfied, without 
stopping to inquire or caring which way they decide it. That is what I 
meant by that declaration, and I am ready to stand by it. 

The senator has made the discovery — I suppose it is very new, for he 
would not repeat anything that was old, after calling me to account for ex- 
pressing an idea that had been heaid of before — that I re-opened the agitation 
by bringing in the Nebraska Bill in 1854; and he tries to put the responsi- 
bility of the crimes perpetrated by his political friends, and in violation of the 
law, upon the provisions of the law itself. We passed a bill to allow the 
people of Kansas to form and regulate their own institutions to suit them- 
selves. No sooner had we placed that law on the statute book, than his po- 
litical friends formed conspiracies and combinations in the different New 
England states to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control the 
elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the laws of Congress. 

Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach conspiracies 
and combinations of that kind ; and I would also include combinations and 
conspiracies on the other side. My object is to establish firmly the doctrine 
that each state is to do its own voting, establish its own institutions, mako 



THE INTASION OP STATES. 517 

its own laws, without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside 
power. The gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squat- 
ter sovereighty, call it popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is the 
great principle of self-government on which this Union was formed, and by 
the preservation of which alone it can be maintained. It is the right of the 
people of every state to govern themselves and make their own laws, and be 
protected from outside violence or interference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I 
confess the object of the legislation I contemplate is to put down this outside 
interference; it is to repress this "irrepressible conflict;" it is to bring the 
government back to the true principles of the Constitution, and let each 
people in this Union rest secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquility 
without apprehension from neighboring states. I will not occupy further 
time. 

On the 29th of February, Mr. Seward having addressed the 
Senate, Mr. Douglas said : 

Mr. President : I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon so 
much of the senator's speech as consists in an assault on the Democratic 
party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, of which I 
was the responsible author. It has become fashionable now-a-days for each 
gentleman making a speech against the Democratic party to refer to the 
Kansas-Nebraska Act as the cause of all the disturbances that have since 
ensued. They talk about the repeal of a sacred compact that had been un- 
disturbed for more than a quarter of a century, as if those who complained 
of violated faith had been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri Compro- 
mise. Sir, wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of 
that act, except it was that the majority in the northern states refused to 
carry out the Missouri Compromise in good faith? I stood willing to extend 
it to the Pacific ocean, and abide by it forever, and the entire South, without 
one exception in this body, was willing thus to abide by it ; but the free- 
soil element of the northern states was so strong as to defeat that meas- 
ure, and thus open the slavery question anew. The men who now complain 
of the abrogation of that act were the very men who denounced it, and de- 
nounced all of us who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon 
the statute book. Sir, it was the defeat in the House of Representatives of 
the enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific 
ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that opened the 
controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adoption of the measures 
of that year. 

"We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the senator from 
New York and his present associates. We, in those measures, established 
a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of intervention by the Congress of 
the United States to prohibit slavery in the territories. Both parties, in 
1852, pledged themselves to abide by that principle, and thus stood pledged 
not to prohibit slavery in the territories by act of Congress. The "Whig party 
affirmed that pledge, and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried 
out, in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed 
in the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to car- 
rying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat of the bill for ex- 
tending it to the Pacific ocean, was the sole cause of the agitation of 1850, 
and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the principle of non-interven- 
tion by Congress with slavery in the territories. 

Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow the senator from New York, 
with all the weight of authority he has with the powerful party of which he 



518 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

is the head, to arraign me and the party to which I belong with the respon- 
sibility for that agitation which rests solely upon him and his associates. Sir, 
the Democratic party was willing to carry out the Compromise in good faith. 
Having been defeated in that for the want of numbers, and having established 
the principle of non-intervention in the Compromise measures of 1850, in lieu 
of it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to the new 
principle of adjustment. Whatever agitation has grown out of the question 
since, has been occasioned by the resistance of the party of which that sena- 
tor is the head, to this great principle which has been ratified by the Amer- 
ican people at two presidential elections. If he was willing to acquiesce in 
the solemn and repeated judgment of that American people to which he ap- 
peals, there would be no agitation in this country now. 

But, sir, the whole argument of that senator goes far beyond the question 
of slavery, even in the territories. His entire argument rests on the assump- 
tion that the negro and the white man were equal by Divine law, and henco 
that all laws and constitutions and governments in violation of the principle 
of negro equality are in violation of the law of God. That is the basis upon 
which his speech rests. He quotes the Declaration of Independence to show 
that the fathers of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on 
an equality with the white man, by quoting the clause, "We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by 
their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness." Sir, the doctrine of that senator and of his 
party is — and I have had to meet it for eight years — that the Declaration of 
Independence intended to recognize the negro and the white man as equal 
under the Divine law, and hence that all the provisions of the Constitution 
of the United States which recognizes slavery are in violation of the Divine 
law. In other words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the 
United States upon the ground that it is contrary to the law of God. Tho 
senator from New York has long held that doctrine. The senator from New 
York has often proclaimed to the world that the Constitution of the United 
States was in violation of the Divine law, and that senator will not contra- 
dict the statement. I have an extract from one of his speeches now before 
me, in which that proposition is distinctly put forth. In a speech made in 
the State of Ohio, in 1848, he said: 

"^Slavery is the sin of not some of the states only, but of them all ; of not 
one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral 
sense of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a uni- 
versal habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American 
state has yet delivered itself entirely from these habits. We, in New York, are 
guilty of slavery still by withholding the rights of suffrage from the race we 
have emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of 
black laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as 
a basis of representation ; and it is written also, IN VIOLATION OF DIVINS 
LAW, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at ccr 
fireside from his relentless pursuers." 

There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution of the 
United States is " in violation of the Divine law" and therefore is not to be 
obeyed. You are told that the clause relating to fugitives slaves, being in 
violation of the Divine law, is not binding on mankind. This has been the 
doctrine of the senator from New York for years. I have not heard it in the 
Senate to-day for the first time. I have met in my own State, for the last 
ten years, this same doctrine, that the Declaration of Independence recognized 
the negro and the white man as equal ; that the negro and white man are 
equals by Divine law, and that every provision of our Constitution and laws 



THE ESTASION OP STATES. 519 

which establishes inequality between the negro and the white man is void, 
because contrary to the law of God. 

The senator from New York says, in the very speech from which I have 
quoted, that New York is yet a slave state. "Why ? Not that she has a slave 
within her limits, but because the Constitution of New York does not allow 
a negro to vote on an equality with a white man. For that reason, he says, 
New York is still a slave state ; for that reason every other state that discrimi- 
nates between the negro and the white man is a slave state, leaving but a 
very few states in the Union that are free from his objection. Yet, notwith- 
standing the senator is committed to these doctrines, notwithstanding the 
leading men of his party are committed to them, he argues that they have 
been accused of being in favor of negro equality, and says the tendency of 
their doctrine is the equality of the white man. He introduces the objection, 
and fails to answer it. He states the proposition, and dodges it, to leave the 
inference that he does not indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen 
carry out their principles to the logical conclusion. If they will persist in the 
declaration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and that any 
inequality is in violation of the Divine law, then let them carry it out in their 
legislation by conferring on the negroes all the rights of citizenship the same 
as on white men. For one, I never held to any such doctrine. I hold that 
the Declaration of Independence was only referring to the white man — to the 
governing race of this country, who were in conflict with Great Britain, and 
had no reference to the negro race at all when it declared that all men were 
created equal. 

Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instrument then as 
tho senator from New York now construes it, were they not bound on that 
day, at that very hour, to emancipate all their slaves ? If Mr. Jefferson had 
meant that his negro slaves were created by the Almighty his equals, was he 
not bound to emancipate the slaves on the very day that he signed his name 
to the Declaration of Independence ? Yet no one of the signers of that decla- 
ration emancipated his slaves. No one of the states on whose behalf the 
declaration was signed emancipated its slaves until after the Revolution was 
over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of the thirteen original 
states, sanctioned and legalized slavery until after the Revolution was closed. 
These facts show conclusively that the Declaration of Independence was never 
intended to bear the construction placed upon it by the senator from New 
York, and by that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country 
delivering lectures in country school houses and basements of churches to 
Abolitionists, in order to teach the children that the Almighty had put his 
seal of condemnation upon any inequality between the white man and the 
negro. 

Mr. President, I am free to say here — what I have said over and over again 
at home — that, in my opinion, this government was made by white men for 
the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be adminis- 
tered by white men, and by none other whatsoever. 

Mr. Doolittle. I will ask the honorable senator, then, why not give the ter- 
ritories to white men ? 

Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I am in favor of throwing the territories open 
to all the white men, and all the negroes, too, that choose to go, and then 
allow the white man to govern the territory. I would not let One of the 
negroes, free or slave, either vote or hold office anywhere, where I had the 
right, under the Constitution, to prevent it. I am in favor of each state and 
each territory of this Union taking care of its own negroes, free or slave. If 
they want slavery, let them have it ; if they desire to prohibit slavery, let 
them do it ; it is their business, not mine. We in Illinois tried slavery while 
we were a territory, and found it was not profitable ; and hence we turned 



520 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

philanthropists and abolished it, just as'our British friends across the ocean 
did. They established slavery in all their colonies, and when they fonnd they 
could not make any more money out of it, abolished it. I hold that the ques- 
tion of slavery is one of political economy, governed by the laws of climate, 
soil, productions, and self-interest, and not by mere statutory provision. I 
repudiate the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best in one cli- 
mate, they are, necessarily, the best every where ; or that because slavery may 
be indispensable in one locality, therefore it is desirable every where. I hold 
that a wise statesman will always adapt his legislation to the wants, interests, 
condition and necessities of the people to be governed by it. One people will 
bear different institutions from another. One climate demands different insti- 
tutions from another. I repeat, then, what I have often had occasion to say, 
that I do not think uniformity is either possible or desirable. I wish to see 
no two states precisely alike in their domestic institutions in this Union. Our 
system rests on the supposition that each state has something in her condition 
or climate, or her circumstances, requiring laws and institutions different from 
every other state of the Union. Hence I answer the question of the senator 
from "Wisconsin, that I am willing that a territory settled by white men shall 
have negroes, free or slave, just as the white men shall determine, but not as 
the negro shall prescribe. 

The senator from New York has coined a new definition of the states of the 
Union — labor states and capital states. The capital states, I believe, are the 
slaveholding states ; the labor states are the non-slaveholding states. It has 
taken that senator a good many years to coin that phrase and bring it into 
use. I have heard him discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten 
years, I think, and I never heard of capital states and labor states before. It 
strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New England that 
makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor, and take the 
side of the numbers against the few. "We have seen some accounts in the 
newspapers of combinations and strikes among the journeymen shoemakers 
in the towns there — labor against capital. The senator has a new word ready 
coined to suit their case, and make the laborers believe that he is on the side 
of the most numerous class of voters. 

"What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers? 'Why are 
the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the employees, now reduced 
to tbe starvation point ? Simply because, by your treason, by your sectional 
agitation, you have created a strife between the North and the South, have 
driven away your southern customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the 
means of support. This is the fruit of your Republican dogmas. It is another 
step, following John Brown, of the " irrepressible conflict." Therefore, we 
now get this new coinage of " labor states" — he is on the side of the shoe- 
makers, (laughter), and " capital states" — he is against those that furnish the 
hides. (Laughter.) I think those shoemakers will understand this business. 
They know why it is that they do not get so many orders as they did a few 
months ago. It is not confined to the shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic's 
shop and every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North 
feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the " irrepressible conflict." This 
new coinage of words will not save them from the just responsibility that fol- 
lows the doctrines they have been inculcating. If they had abandoned the 
doctrine of the " irrepressible conflict," and proclaimed the true doctrine of 
the Constitution, that each state is entirely free to do just as it pleases, have 
slavery as long as it chooses, and abolish it when it wishes, there would be 
no conflict ; the northern and southern states would be brethren ; there would 
be fraternity between us, and your shoemakers would not strike for higher 
prices. 

Mr. Clark. "Will the senator pardon me for interrupting him a moment? 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 521 

Mr. Douglas. I will not give way for a speech ; I will for a suggestion. 

Mr. Clark. I desire simply to make one single suggestion in regard to what 
the senator from Illinois said in reference to the condition of the laboring 
classes in the factories. I come from a city where there are three thousand 
operatives, and there never was a time when they were more contented and 
better paid in the factories than now, and when their business was better than 
at this present time. 

Mr. Douglas. I was speaking of the scarcity of labor growing up in our 
northern manufacturing towns, as a legitimate and natural consequence of the 
diminution of the demand for the manufactured article ; and then the question 
is, what cause has reduced this demand, except the "irrepressible conflict" 
that has turned the southern trade away from northern cities into southern 
towns and southern cities ? Sir, the feeling among the masses of the south 
we find typified in the dress of the senator from Virginia. (Mr. Mason) ; they 
are determined to wear the homespun of their own productions rather than 
trade with the north. That is the feeling which has produced this state of 
distress in our manufacturing towns. 

The senator from New York has also referred to the recent action of the 
people of New Mexico, in establishing a code for the protection of prop- 
erty in slaves, and he congratulates the country upon the final success of 
the advocates of free institutions in Kansas. He could not fail, however, 
to say, in order to preserve what he thought was a striking antithesis, that 
popular sovereignty in Kansas meant state sovereignty in Missouri. No, 
sir ; popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination 
in New England to ship men to Kansas — rowdies and vagabonds — with the 
Bible in one hand and Sharpe's rifle in the other, to shoot down the friends 
of self-government. Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by the 
combinations in the northern states to carry elections under pretence of emi- 
grant aid societies. In retaliation, Missouri formed aid societies too ; and she, 
following your example, sent men into Kansas and then occurred the conflict. 
Now, you throw.the blame upon Missouri merely because she followed your 
example, and attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both ; but I 
condemn a thousand-fold more those who set the example and struck the first 
blow, than those who thought they would act upon the principle of fighting 
the devil with his own weapons, and resorted to the same means that you had 
employed. 

But, sir, notwithstanding the efforts of the emigrant aid societies, the peo- 
ple of Kansas have had their own way, and the people of New Mexico have 
had their own way. Kansas had adopted a free state ; New Mexico has es- 
tablished a slave territory. I am content with both. If the people of New 
Mexico want slavery, let them have it, and I never will vote to repeal their 
slave code. If Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to 
force it on her. Let each do as it pleases. When Kansas comes to tho con- 
clusion that slavery will suit her, and promote her interest better than the 
prohibition, let her pass her own slave code ; I will not pass it for her. 
Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she must repeal it for herself; 
I will not repeal it for her. Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in 
the territories is the platform on which I stand. 

But I want to know why will not the senator from New York carry out 
his principles to their logical conclusion ? Why is there not a man in that 
whole party, in this body or in the House of Representatives, bold enough to 
redeem the pledges which that party has made to the country ? I believe 
you said, in your Philadelphia platform, that Congress had sovereign power 
over the territories for their government, and that it was the duty of Con- 
gress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, slavery and 
polygamy. Why do you not carry out your pledges ? Why do you not in- 



522 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

troduce your bill ? The senator from New York says they have no new 
measures to originate ; no new movement to make ; no new bill to bring 
forward. Then what confidence shall the American people repose in your 
faith and sincerity, when, having the power in one house, you do not bring 
forward a bill to carry out your principles ? The fact is, these principles are 
avowed to get votes in the North, but not to be carried into effect by acts of 
Congress. You are afraid of hurting your party if you -bring in your bill to 
repeal the slave code of New Mexico ; afraid of driving off the conservative 
men ; you think it is wise to wait until after the election. I should be glad 
to have confidence enough in the sincerity of the other side of the chamber 
to suppose they had courage to bring forward a law to carry out their prin- 
ciples to their logical conclusions. I find nothing of that. They wish to 
agitate, to excite the people of the North against the South to get votes for 
the Presidential election ; but they shrink from carrying out their measures, 
lest they might throw off some conservative voters who do not like the 
Democratic party. 

But, sir, if the senator from New York, in the event that he is made Presi- 
dent, intends to carry out his principles to their logical conclusion, let us see 
where they will lead him. In the same speech that I read from a few min- 
utes ago, I find the following. Addressing the people of Ohio, he said : 

" You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as 
household words ; and your pretended free-soil allies claim peculiar merit for 
maintaining these miscalled guarantees of slavery, which they find in the 
national compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept 
up with the spirit of the age ; that it is as true and faithful to human free- 
dom as the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be ? 
"What then, you say, can nothing be done for freedom, because the public 
conscience remains inert ? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. 
Slavery can be limited to its present bounds." 

That is the first thing that can be done — slavery can be limited to its 
present bounds. What else ? 

"IT CAN" BE AMELIORATED. IT CAN AND MUST BE ABOLISHED, AND YOU 
AND I CAN AND MUST DO IT." 

There you find our two propositions ; first, slavery was to be limited to the 
states in which it was then situated. It did not then exist in any territory. 
Slavery was confined to the states. The first proposition was that slavery 
must be restricted and confined to those states. The second was that he, as 
•a New Yorker, and they, the people of Ohio, must and would abolish it ; 
that is to say abolish it in the states. They could abolish it no where else. 
Every appeal they make to northern prejudice and passion is against the in- 
stitution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their 
Abolition allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it was 
the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery in the 
states as well as in the territories of the Union. 

And again, in the same speech, the senator from New York advised the 
people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words : 

" But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combi- 
nation of factions or parties, wherein the strength and security of slavery he. 
You answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the 
Constitutions and laws of slaveholding states. Not at all. It is in the errone- 
ous sentiment of the American people. Constitutions and laws can no more 
rise above the virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above 
its native spring. Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man 
under the paternal roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the 
churches; reform your own code; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who 
lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal 



THE INVASION OF STATES. 523 

gods ; correct your own error that slavery' is a constitutional guarantee which 
may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished.'''' 

I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the Constitu- 
tion ; they would not violate the Constitution except so far as the Constitu- 
tion violates the law of G-od — that is all — and they are to be the judges of 
how far the Constitution does violate the law of God. They say that every 
clause of the Constitution that recognizes property in slaves is in violation 
of the Divine law, and hence should not be made ; and with that interpreta- 
tion of the Constitution they turn to the South and say, " We will give you 
all your rights under the Constitution as we explain it I" 

Then the senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very beautiful 
homily on the glories of our Union. All that he has said, all that any other 
man has ever said, all that the most eloquent tongue can ever utter, in be- 
half of the blessings and the advantages of this glorious Union, I fully in- 
dorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say that the Union is glorious only 
when the Constitution is preserved inviolate. He eulogized the Union. I, 
too, am for the Union ; I indorse the eulogies ; but still, what is the Union 
worth, unless the Constitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all 
its provisions ? 

Sir, I have no faith in the Union loving sentiments of those will not carry 
out the Constitution in good faith, as our fathers made it. Professions of 
fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, unless they are accompanied 
by obedience to the Constitution upon which the Union rests. I have a 
right to insist that the Constitution shall be maintained inviolate in all its 
parts, not only that which suits the temper of the North, but every clause of 
that Constitution, whether you like it or dislike it. Your oath to support the 
Constitution binds you to every line, word, and syllable of the instrument. 
Tou have no right to say that any given clause is in violation of the Divine 
law, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who disobeys 
any one clause on the pretext that it violates the Divine law, or on any 
other pretext, violates hi3 oath of office. 

But, sir, what a commentary is this pretext that the Constitution is a vio- 
lation of the Divine law upon those revolutionary fathers whose eulogies we 
have heard here to-day ! Did the framers of that instrument make a Con- 
stitution in violation of the law of God ? If so, how do your consciences 
allow you to take the oath of office ? If the senator from New York still 
holds to his declaration that the clause in the Constitution relative to fugi- 
tive slaves is a violation of the Divine law, how dare he, as an honest man, 
take an oath to support the instrument ? Did he understand that he was 
defying the authority of Heaven when he took the oath to support that in- 
instrument ? 

Thus, we see, the radical difference between the Republican party and the 
Democratic party, is this : we stand by the Constitution as our fathers made 
it, and by the decisions of the constituted authorities as they are pronounced 
in obedience to the Constitution. They repudiate the instrument, substitute 
their own will for that of the constituted authorities, annul such provisions 
as their fanaticism, or prejudice, or policy, may declare to be in violation of 
God's law, and then say, " "We will protect all your rights under the Con- 
stitution as expounded by ourselves ; but not as expounded by the tribunal 
created for that purpose." 

Mr. President, I shall not occupy further time in the discussion of this ques- 
tion to-night. I did not intend to utter a word; and I should not have ut- 
tered a word upon the subject, if the senator from New York had not made 
a broad arraignment of the Democratic party, and especially of that portion 
of the action of the party for which I was most immediately responsible. 
Everybody knows that I brought forward and helped to carry through the 



524 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

Kansas-Nebraska Act, and that I was active in support of the Compromise 
measures of 1850. I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party 
for that act too long to be walling to remain silent and seem to sanction it 
by tacit acquiescence. 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS — COMMITTEE SERVICE — PUBLIC LANDS. 

Immediately after the election in 1858, Judge Douglas, for 
the purpose of recruiting his health, le Chicago with his fam- 
ily for Washington by the way of the Mississippi river. When 
in St. Louis he was the recipient of many public honors and 
courtesies. On his way South, he was met some fifty miles 
north of Memphis by a delegation of the citizens of that pros- 
perous city, who earnestly invited him to remain over there 
and partake of the hospitalities which it would be their pride 
as well as pleasure to extend to him and his family. Gratified 
beyond measure by this most unexpected greeting at the hands 
of the people of a southern city, he accepted the cordial invita- 
tion, and on the day after his arrival, addressed a very large 
assemblage of citizens, to whom he repeated the policy and 
principles he had advocated in the campaign that had just 
closed in Illinois. He declared that he could speak no senti- 
ments in Tennessee that he could not speak as freely in Illinois, 
and that any opinions that could not be uttered in the one 
state as acceptably as in the other were necessarily unsound 
and anti-Democratic. 

He on the next day proceeded down the river to New 
Orleans, where a grand reception awaited him. He reached 
there at night, and as the steamer n eared the city he was 
greeted with a salute and an illumination. He was escorted 
to the hotel by the military and a vast concourse of people. At 
the hotel he was welcomed by the mayor as the guest of the 
city, and also welcomed by the Hon. Pierre Soule on the part 
of the citizens. To these addresses, in which he was congrat- 
ulated upon his recent victory in Illinois, he responded in a 
suitable manner. 

On the 6th of December he addressed a mass meeting in 
Odd Fellows Hall, in a speech of which we have already given 
some extracts, and in which he repeated the famous doctrines 
so often defended by him in the Illinois campaign. 

After leaving New Orleans he staid some days at Havana, 



PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS. 525 

and then proceeded to New York by steamer. In the mean- 
time the authorities of New York in anticipation of his arrival 
had unanimously voted that, " it is eminently due to this es- 
teemed patriot and distinguished senator that the city of New 
York, through its constituted authorities, should extend to him 
a cordial welcome on his arrival, in order to express their ad- 
miration of the man, and of the principles which he has so long 
and so ably defended," and therefore appointed a committe to 
extend to Mr. Douglas the hospitalities of the city. When he 
reached New York he was met by committees of the city coun- 
cils and escorted to the Everett House. 

As soon as his presence in New York was ascertained, a 
meeting of citizens was held at Philadelphia to adopt measures 
for his reception there. The city council voted the use of In- 
dependence Hall for that purpose. On his arrival there on the 
4th of January, 1859, he was escorted to the venerated hall, 
and was there formally welcomed by Mayor Henry on behalf 
of the authorities, and by W. E. Lehman, Esq., on behalf of 
the people. The speeches on this occasion have been pre- 
served, and in a more comprehensive biography of Mr. Douglas 
will form a most interesting chapter. 

When leaving Philadelphia he was accompanied by a large 
delegation of his friends, who continued with him until he had 
crossed the Susquehanna, when he was met by a committee 
of citizens of Baltimore, who, in behalf of the people of that 
city, welcomed him to the soil of Maryland. 

In the evening of January the 5th, he was greeted with a 
serenade at the Gilmore House, and having been introduced 
to the assemblage of persons in Monument Square, addresssd 
them — returning his acknowledgments for the honors received 
by him, and again repeating the truths and arguments he had 
been accustomed to express to the people of Illinois. 

On his arrival at Washington he was welcomed by thou- 
sands of the people of that city — people who held no office and 
expected none, and therefore had no dread of official frowns. 
On reaching his own house he made a suitable acknowledg- 
ment for the kindness of his old friends and neighbors. His 
whole journey from Chicago to Washington was a succession 
of popular manifestations of admiration for the man who had 
had the boldness to maintain the right, and had the ability to 
overcome and vanquish all the opposition arrayed against him. 



526 LIFE OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

SERVICES ON COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS. 

While Mr. Douglas was at Havana, Congress had assem- 
bled, and a caucus of the Democratic senators had arranged 
the Senate committees. In this arrangement Mr. Green, of 
Missouri, was named as chairman of the Committee on Terri- 
tories in place of Mr. Douglas. This, it will be remembered, 
was done while Mr. Douglas was absent. No reason was given 
for it until late in the year, when Mr. Gwin stated the reason 
in his speech at Grass Valley, California. 

When Mr. Douglas first took his seat in the House of Rep- 
resentatives he was assigned a place on the Committee on Elec- 
tions, from which committee at that session he made the cele- 
brated report upon the constitutional powers of Congress to 
regulate the manner and time of holding elections in the states. 
The Whig Congress of 1841 and 1842 had passed a law requir- 
ing the states to elect members of Congress by districts. New 
Hampshire, Georgia and some other states had disregarded 
this law and had elected their representatives by general ticket. 
The question whether the members thus elected against the 
provisions of the act of the previous Congress was one that 
was considered of great importance. Mr. Douglas made an 
elaborate report upon the subject, being a complete vindication 
of the rights of the states, and his report was adopted as the 
judgment of the house by a most decided majority. At the 
next session he was placed on the Judiciary Committee, from 
which he reported the bill extending the admiralty and mari- 
time jurisdiction of the United States district and circuit 
courts to all cases arising on the lakes — thus giving to the in- 
ternal commerce and navigation the same judicial protection 
that was enjoyed on the coast. 

At the opening of the next Congress, Mr. Douglas was made 
chairman of the Committee on Territories in the House of 
Representatives, and held that position until he closed his ser- 
vices in that body. When he took his seat in the Senate he 
was made chairman of the Committee on Territories, and had 
been regularly elected to the position every year from Decem- 
ber 1847, to December 1857, inclusive. In December 1858, 
for the reasons given by Mr. Gwin, he was displaced. It has 
been stated that he was tendered the chairmanship of another 
committee but he declined it — if politically unfitted for the one 
he was equally so for the other. 



PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS. 527 

During his service in the Senate he was for many years a 
member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, ^nd also a 
Regent of the Smithsonian Institution. 

THE PUBLIC LANDS. 

Mr. Douglas, as has been shown, successfully supported the 
act making the great donation of public land to Illinois for 
rail road purposes, and has supported acts making like grants 
to other states. 

He has always supported a liberal policy in the administra- 
tion of the public lands— a policy looking always to their occu- 
pancy and cultivation by actual settlers. He has reported and 
defended those provisions in the Oregon, Washington and 
other territoritorial acts granting lands to actual settlers on 
condition of occupancy, &c. 

In 1850 he introduced into the Senate a proposition having 
for its effect a liberal donation to the head of every family, 
male or female — of the public land on the condition of settle- 
ment and cultivation. The principle involved in his proposi- 
sition was something similar to that embraced in the " Home- 
stead bill " so long pending in Congress, and of which Mr. 
Douglas is an earnest supporter. 

He has always as a legislator, as a judge, and as a statesman 
been a firm friend and maintainer of the rights and interests 
of the agriculturists of the country. Hence it is that he has 
always opposed the extension and renewal by Congress for 
extraordinary periods the patents of inventors for agricultural 
implements, an opposition which has provoked a hostility that 
is as unjust as it is selfish. 

On the 18th of September, 1851, he delivered by invitation 
an address at Rochester, New York, before the New York 
Agricultural Society, an address abounding in lofty sentiment 
and practical teaching. A copy of that address is published 
in the annual reports of the proceedings of the society. 

CONCLUSION. 

In the foregoing pages have been crowded brief statements 
of some of the leading incidents of the marked career of Mr. 
Douglas. His history is a voluminous one, and to do full jus- 
tice to it would require four times the space that has been 
taken in this work. At some future time, some of the events 



528 LIFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 

herein only slightly touched upon may be elaborated to ar. 
extent that their importance will justify and that truth wil 
require. The record, even prepared as it is imperfectly, wil 
not fail to point out Mr. Douglas as a most remarkable man 

At this day he occupies the most extraordinary position of 
being the only man in his own party whose nomination for th( 
Presidency is deemed equivalent to an election. Friends of 
other statesmen claim that other men, if nominated, may b( 
elected — a claim that admits of strong and well supported con 
troversy ; but friend and foe — all Democrats, unite in the opin 
ion that Douglas' nomination will place success beyond al 
doubt. 



THE END. 



a '08 




w 



'<* *? « 






\ w ^. 










% 



• / s . . , *«. 




























^ 

^ 



^ V* 



% ^ 



ft- 



